Slate Articleshttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead.fulltext.all.rss
Stories from SlateTranscript:&nbsp;Clinton's Emergency Conference Callhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2008/03/transcriptclintons_emergency_conference_call.html
<p><em>Chadwick Matlin transcribed a&nbsp;portion of the Tuesday-night press conference call convened by Clinton's campaign.</em></p>
<p>BAUER: &quot;Different than the one previously made against every other caucus so far.&quot;</p>
<p>SOMEBODY: &quot;Please start over.&quot;</p>
<p>CROSSTALK</p>
<p>BAUER: Can you hear me?</p>
<p>WOLFSON: &quot;Bob, how nice of you to call! How are you?&quot;</p>
<p>BAUER: Glad to talk to you it's been a while. We haven't seen each other since Iowa, which is the occasion of the last series of complaints the Clinton campaign has made against the caucus process. I'd be interested to know…(chatter) Nevada where you filed a lawsuit. I was just curious to know how is this any different, in fact, from the series of complaitns that you've registered against every caucus that you lose.</p>
<p>WOLFSON: Actually Bob we haven't experienced this exchange since you made a series of complaints in Nevada. And tried to do everything that you and the Obama campaign could do to undermine the results there. You haven't been on any of these calls with us before. We welcome you to this one. </p>
<p>BAUER: Well I appreciate that.</p>
<p>CLINTON person: The first call of this nature we've had. What is happening in Texas is extraordinary. We, of course, don't hold you personally responsible for it. But we do believe that you share our commitment to a strong democratic values and a system that ensures everyone who wants to participate in our process be given an equal and fair opportunity to do so. So I would imagine that you would welcome this opportunity to join with us to ensure that the problems we are pointing out on this call are dealt with expeditiously so that every Democrat in Texas who wants to participate can do so. </p>
<p>BAUER: Well, Howard, I just – I appreciate the spirit with which you're engaging me on this, and I just want to thank you for that. I just wanted to make sure you're answering my question. In Nevada you filed a lawsuit in advance of the caucus. In Iowa, you threatened various students with potential consequences if they voted under Iowa law. Now in the evening of the Texas caucus, while it's virtually taking place you claim you have well-documented accusations and that this is somehow the first time you've raised issues like this, and that really isn't true. Is it, Howard?</p>
<p>WOLFSON: What I said Bob, and we can debate and then we'll let the reporters ask some of their questions, that this is in fact the first phone call of this nature we have had during this campaign. I am quite certain saying that because I would have been running them. The lawsuit that you referred to was not filed by us, as you know and saw fairly well. Again, I would ask you to join us this evening in ensuring that the serious problems that are ongoing as we speak in Texas are addressed with. We are all Democrats. We are all concerned about the process being fair and open for everyone. Again I would ask you with all the reporters on the line to join with us in helping to make sure that these problems are corrected so that everybody has an opportunity to participate.</p>
<p>BAUER: I'm happy to answer the challenge and let other people speak at this point, Howard. But I will say that I'm more than happy to enter into any commitment that you might have to actually for the first time in some period of time stop attacking the caucus process that didn't start bothering the Clinton campaign until it ran a series of fairly extraordinary losses, but I'm still we can debate that at some point in the future.</p>
<p>WOLFSON: This is not about the process, Bob. It's about the way that this particular set of caucuses are ongoing as we speak. Again, I just want to make sure all the reporters know that it was the Obama campaign that made a very long list of allegations about the caucus process in Nevada when you lost that caucus. Let's be clear about the facts there.</p>
<p>BAUER: I don't recall filing a lawsuit in Nevada trying to stop voting at the at-large precincts that were thrown-out as completely meritless by a federal judge. If we're the one who filed it it certainly escapes me. It was filed by your surrogates and is part of a string of accusations you've launched against the caucus process on no principle other than the fact that you seem to (garbled) seem to get the votes you need to win. But as I said, there are others who have questions, so we'll let them ask the questions that they need to ask. I appreciate you taking the questions, Howard, and I thank you for that.</p>
<p>WOLFSON: We look forward to asking our own questions in subsequent phone calls of yours.</p>
<p>BAUER: Pleasure. I can't wait to hold one and have you as my first questioner.</p>
<p>WOLFSON: Excellent. Next question please.</p>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:51:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2008/03/transcriptclintons_emergency_conference_call.html2008-03-05T02:51:00ZBob Bauer and Howard Wolfson face off.News and PoliticsBob Bauer and Howard Wolfson face off in press call.2185815Trailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2185815falsefalsefalseBob Bauer and Howard Wolfson face off in press call.Bob Bauer and Howard Wolfson face off in press call.Joe the Optimisthttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/joe_the_optimist.html
<p><strong> <a>From the Department of Wishful Thinking:</a></strong> Via the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SJ9ADG1&amp;show_article=1&amp;catnum=3">AP</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Biden: Race Is About Ideas, Not Money</strong></p>
<p><em>By RANDALL CHASE<br />Associated Press Writer</em></p>
<p>WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden said Monday that the race for the White House is more about ideas than the huge amounts of money being raised by many of the other candidates.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 30,&nbsp;10:44 a.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#dept">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Oct. 29, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong>The <a>Immigrant </a> Gadfly:</strong> Tom Tancredo has announced he's quitting politics—congressional politics.</p>
<p>The Colorado congressman <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7312704">announced today</a> that he will not seek another term after his expires in 2008. You'd think this would mean Tancredo wants to focus on his efforts to grab the Republican presidential nod. But instead, his spokesman said his decision was partly based on wanting to spend more time with his grandkids.</p>
<p>Last time we checked, somebody doesn't run for president to spend more time with his grandkids. If Tancredo wants out so badly, then why is he still in it?</p>
<p>It may have to do with his other reason for leaving Congress: He thinks he's accomplished all he can on the immigration issue inside of the Capitol. Whereas he feels he can pass the hard-line-immigration baton to other House members, he doesn't see any other presidential candidates who share his anti-immigrant vigor. Tancredo is willing to sully his political legacy to enforce America's borders.</p>
<p>Last week, Tancredo offered Mitt Romney a deal: If the Red Sox lost the World Series, Romney would have to bow out of the race. But if the Rockies lost, Tancredo would drop out. If only Romney had accepted, Tancredo would have said <em>Adios</em> to both of his campaigns today. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 29,&nbsp;6:11 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#tancredo">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>News you can't use:</a></strong>If you haven't had your daily dose of meta, check out the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/node/8187">new study</a> analyzing coverage of the 2008 presidential race, conducted by the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/">Project for Excellence in Journalism</a>. (If that's not quite meta enough, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Coverage_coverage.html">read</a> <a href="http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2007/10/biased_us.shtml">the</a> <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&amp;aid=132236">coverage</a> of the coverage of the coverage.) The study's general findings: Democrats have gotten more coverage than Republicans in 2007; Barack Obama hasn't been able to translate positive news stories into gains in the polls; and the media isn't reporting what the public wants to hear about. (They allegedly want substance, we give them horse-race minutiae.)</p>
<p>But a few interesting details seem to have passed under our navel-gazing radar:</p>
<p>—Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani have more negative coverage than positive. Yet they're both still front-runners. How is that? Tom Rosenstiel, director of Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggested it's the result of the frontrunners getting &quot;scrubbed a little harder than others.&quot; He also pointed out that both candidates, being from New York, get more than the usual scrutiny from the <em>New York Times</em>, which tends to set the tone for networks, magazines, etc. </p>
<p>—Most Americans claim they want more debate coverage. I blinked when I saw this. What about all that <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/26/post_157.html">debate fatigue</a> I hear about? </p>
<p>—More coverage doesn't necessarily mean better poll numbers—see the Obama example above—but it does correlate with higher name recognition. Hillary and Obama had more stories written about them than any other candidates. Likewise, 78 percent of Americans could name Hillary as a candidate, and 62 percent could name Obama—higher name recognition than any of the GOP candidates. So, if I'm reading this right: people <em>pay attention</em> to the media, they just don't care what we say. </p>
<p>—The Democrats drive a higher proportion of stories about themselves than the Republicans do. An analysis of &quot;triggers&quot;—what causes a story to be written—shows that 57 percent of stories about Dems are inspired by the candidate or the campaign, as opposed to 46 percent in the case of Republicans. Perhaps the &quot;right-wing message machine&quot; could use some repairs. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 29,&nbsp;5:31 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#news">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p> <strong>Space </strong> <a><strong>Race</strong></a><strong>: </strong> Bill Richardson's a believer. So is Dennis Kucinich. Even Rudy Giuliani is willing to admit that extraterrestrials might be out there.</p>
<p>The 2008 presidential race is starting to look like an <em> <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v9ROoPynGFM">Alf</a></em>convention. Last week, Kucinich's alien beliefs were <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1193128634148360.xml&amp;coll=2">outed</a> by his good friend Shirley MacLaine. Her new book details Kucinich's run-in with a UFO on her porch: &quot;It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind.&quot; One can only guess what those directions <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/119364703611920.xml&amp;coll=2">may have said</a>.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, an 8-year-old kid <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yQkrFtnY1s">asked Giuliani</a>, &quot;If you find that there is something living on another planet and it is bad and it comes over here what would you do?&quot; Rudy, ever vigilant on national security matters, assured the boy that there won't be a repeat of <a href="http://www.flightsim.com/review/dvd3/IndependenceDay.jpg"><em>Independence Day</em></a> if he's in the Oval Office. &quot;Well if we're properly prepared for all of the different things that can happen to us, we'll be prepared for that, as well,&quot; he said with a grin.</p>
<p>But it was Bill Richardson who spoke most explicitly on the UFO issue last weekend. Speaking to Dell employees in Texas, Richardson <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5249582.html">said</a> that if he became president, he would continue his long fight to release top-secret files on Roswell, New Mexico's infamous &quot;flying disc&quot; recovery. In a foreword to <em> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Roswell-Dig-Diaries-Channel-Books/dp/0743486129">Roswell Dig Diaries</a>,</em> a 2004 Sci Fi Channel book, the New Mexico governor <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/16/MNGAK88OQQ1.DTL">wrote</a> that he has never been satisfied with the government's explanation and that the &quot;American people can handle the truth.&quot; Considering Richardson makes up part of the &quot;<a href="http://www.paradigmresearchgroup.org/Article_Archive/Exopolitics-The_ET_Ticket.html">ET Ticket</a>,&quot; I guess it should come as no surprise.</p>
<p>Giuliani and Richardson have even managed to use aliens for political gain. The terrorist threat pales in comparison with an alien invasion, so if Giuliani can protect us from little green men, then Osama should be a walk in the Pakistani park. Richardson's assertion that he would release top-secret Roswell files if he became president implies that he is willing to run a transparent White House with all nonalien issues, as well. </p>
<p>One more thing—it shouldn't come as a shock, but Mike Gravel <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWlFxRBJZbQ">is a believer</a>, too.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 29,&nbsp;3:17 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#ufo">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Health conscious:</a></strong> The politics of illness is particularly sensitive in this election, with so many candidates and their spouses battling one disease or another. Fred Thompson <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041100795.html">announced</a> in April that he had been diagnosed with lymphoma but that the cancer was in remission. Before that, Elizabeth Edwards <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/edwards.2008/index.html">revealed</a> that her cancer had returned but that her husband's campaign would continue. And now Rudy Giuliani, pushing his health-care plan in New Hampshire, is rolling out a <a href="http://blip.tv/file/451773">new radio ad</a> discussing his experience with prostate cancer, which he <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlighthealth/2002-10-14-giuliani_x.htm">defeated</a> in 2000. </p>
<p>&quot;I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago,&quot; Giuliani says in the spot.&nbsp;&quot;My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent.&nbsp;My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine.&quot;</p>
<p>It feels icky to discuss life-threatening illnesses in PR terms, but it's no accident that Rudy chose to weave his own story into his message about health care. We're used to seeing warrior Rudy, victory this and security that. We're not used to seeing vulnerable Rudy.</p>
<p>Of course, there's good vulnerable and there's bad vulnerable. In Thompson's case, people initially wondered if he would be able to launch his campaign. In Edwards' case, allies speculated that he would drop out. But Rudy's case is—forgive me for saying it—a good one, at least from the political angle. For one thing, he beat the cancer. (Look out, Islamofascism.) But more importantly, it softens him up. As Elizabeth Edwards <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2170697/">might say</a>, he has stared the worst in the face and not blinked. </p>
<p>This sort of human touch—candid without being cheesy—is just what Rudy needs. For him, religion is private, and the same seems to be true for other personal and emotional issues. But personal narratives matter to voters. We know he's willing to put people in a hospital. It's also good to know he's been there himself. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 29,&nbsp;1:55 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#rudyhealth">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p> <a><strong>Comic relief:</strong></a> One argument for keeping fringe candidates around is that they make the mainstream pack address difficult topics. You could say the same thing about Stephen Colbert's sudden presence in the 2008 race, only in this case he's making them funny. </p>
<p>After a <a href="http://www.thestate.com/">South Carolina newspaper</a> let readers vote on whether John Edwards or Stephen Colbert was actually the state's &quot;favorite son,&quot; the Edwards camp issued this rebuttal: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>CLAIM: Edwards abandoned South Carolina when he was one year old.</p>
<p>FACT: Edwards was born in South Carolina, learned to walk in South Carolina, learned to talk to in South Carolina, and will kick Stephen Colbert's New York City butt in South Carolina.</p>
<p>Stephen Colbert claims to represent a new kind of politics, but today we see he's participating in the slash and burn politics that has no place in American discourse. The truthiness is, as the candidate of Doritos, Colbert's hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from salty food lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not bad for a political communications team. Voters like a candidate who can make fun of himself, and Edwards hasn't always fit the bill—see his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fz0TqaonkY">bristling response</a> to the admittedly ubiquitous coverage of his hair. Poking fun at his anti-corporate, anti-lobby image is a smart move. </p>
<p>Hopefully we'll see Colbert engage the other candidates, too. Something tells me Mitt Romney is already readying the canned-joke assembly line. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 29,&nbsp;12:05 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#comic">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Oct. 26, 2007 </strong></p>
<p><em>The </em> <a><em>Fringe</em></a><em>, Part 5: This is the fifth entry in &quot;The Fringe,&quot; a periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. Read Parts </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175960/#Fringe"><em>1</em></a><em>, </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175960/#fringetwo"><em>2</em></a><em>, </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringethree"><em>3</em></a><em>, and </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringefour"><em>4</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Cap Fendig is the fringe man's Mike Huckabee. The Republican presidential candidate wants to keep the troops in Iraq, supports the fair tax, and promotes pro-life policies. But while Huckabee's profile continues to rise, Cap Fendig is hoping to grab four percent of the votes in Iowa, at most. That's what happens when the highest public office you've held is county commissioner.</p>
<p>The 53-year-old man certainly looks presidential, and speaks in a southern drawl that would make John Edwards swoon. <a href="http://www.capfendig.com/index.html">His high-quality Web site</a> has pictures of him and his wife looking like the all-American couple—complete with an out-of-focus background to imply Fendig is a stark contrast to the murky America that surrounds us all. </p>
<p>Fendig recently sold his tour company in Georgia to fund his campaign, but it was his business that inspired him to run in the first place. He said his platform consists of policies the &quot;American people&quot; want. Of course, most of those Americans are his conservative tour clientele.</p>
<p>Fendig is not ashamed to tell you that he thinks the constitution ought to be changed. First up, the Fair Tax, which would repeal the 16<sup>th</sup> amendment that allows the government to collect an income tax. Next, he wants to solve the immigration problem by scrapping pieces of the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment. Under the Fendig administration, babies born in the&nbsp;United States&nbsp;would no longer be automatic U.S. citizens. Their parents would have to be citizens, as well. Unclear on whether America would make it a habit of deporting children before they leave the hospital. Oh, and don't forget to tack on a gay marriage amendment while you're at it. (Fendig said homosexuality is a lifestyle choice America cannot endorse but should protect.)</p>
<p>Constitutional changes aside, Fendig is making <a href="http://www.capfendig.com/platform.html">one novel recommendation</a>: He wants to impose term limits on congressmen so that the legislative branch has a &quot;rotation of fresh ideas and energy.&quot; </p>
<p>Fendig, though, has more pressing concerns—like getting people to take him seriously. When Fendig delivered his official announcement speech at a county meeting, the <a href="http://www.thebrunswicknews.com/CAP.php">video</a> shows that the woman sitting behind him couldn't help but let loose a laugh. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 26,&nbsp;6:07 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fringefive">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>All aboard:</a></strong> The Republican presidential candidates may have found the perfect enemy: the Law of the Sea Treaty. The treaty, a U.N. convention ratified by 150 countries in 1994 but not by the United States, sets rules for navigating international waters, governs economic activity therein, and also establishes certain environmental standards. And, if you ask the GOP candidates, it must be stopped.</p>
<p>Mike Huckabee <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176629/">told</a><strong><em>Slate</em></strong>'s John Dickerson that the Law of the Sea has &quot;damaging and dangerous implications for our national sovereignty.&quot; Fred Thompson <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZlNzY3OWYxZmM0YTMyNmM3MjJiY2YzMjFjYzgzODY=">said</a> earlier this week that the law &quot;gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests.&quot; <a href="http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/mccain_would_oppose_law_of_the_sea_treaty">John McCain</a> and <a href="http://campaignemails.blogspot.com/2007/10/hunter-calls-on-congress-kill-law-of.html">Duncan Hunter</a> have spoken out against the treaty as well. </p>
<p>The candidates know they can get mileage out of the treaty. For one thing, it just sounds silly. Who wants to submit to something called the Law of the Sea Treaty? If you violate it, do they make you walk the plank? (Also note the acronym: LOST.) </p>
<p>But more to the point, it gives them an opportunity to rail against international law. Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because of a provision about mineral mining, but since then the United States&nbsp;has followed the treaty in practice (minus the mining part). President Clinton signed it, but the Republican Congress didn't pass it. President Bush currently supports it, as do the U.S. Navy and the oil industry. (It gives the United States a seat at the table on issues like the Arctic's oil resources, which has enjoyed a resurgence&nbsp;ever since&nbsp;Russia <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm">planted its flag </a> there.) In other words, there's very little reason for a Republican not to support the treaty, except to show his general opposition to international law. </p>
<p>And that's just what the GOP candidates want. For them, opposing the Law of the Sea isn't a practical matter. It's ideological. It's about making clear that no one else tells us what to do. Even if they did support it, who wants to be the one guy explaining the intricacies of the 200-page Law of the Sea at the next debate? No, better to make vague noises about national sovereignty, <a href="http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/National_Journal-19Oct07.pdf">invoke Ronald Reagan</a> once or twice, and be done with it.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 26,&nbsp;4:57 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#allaboard">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Hopeless:</a></strong> In the <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/26/432488.aspx">already</a> &nbsp; <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Another_round_on_Iran.html">much</a>- <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/clinton-e-mail-hits-obama-on-iran/">publicized</a> e-mail blitz yesterday by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the Iran debate is taking a turn for the ugly.</p>
<p>After President Bush announced sanctions on Iran's military, Obama's camp sent out a statement insisting that &quot;these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran&quot; and suggesting that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which Hillary voted for, does this. Hillary blasted back with a <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Another_round_on_Iran.html">memo</a>: &quot;Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton.&quot;</p>
<p>As the Iran showdown escalates—both campaigns <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#redux">sent out mailers</a> on the issue this week—Obama appears to be pedaling against the wind. As many have pointed out, Clinton took pains to make sure the bill didn't include authorization of military force. And as Clinton herself notes, where was Obama during that vote? </p>
<p>But still, Clinton's tactics come off as downright nasty. Her word of choice to describe opposing campaigns used to be <em>flagging</em>. Now it's <em>stagnant</em>. (May we suggest <em>flaccid</em>?) At the same time, Hillary is still using Obama's coinage, the &quot;politics of hope,&quot; against him. Obama originally intended the phrase to mean avoiding personal attacks. But over the past weeks, Hillary has redefined it as avoiding attacks on her policies. By conflating the two, she implies that Obama is becoming a bully and, in the process, abandoning his principles. She has turned his promise of civility into a straightjacket. </p>
<p>Obama should be calling her out on this. If Hillary is going to try and make all policy attacks sound personal, Obama should point out that strategy and rebuff it. Obama spokesman Bill Burton's reponse, sent to reporters yesterday evening, fails to do this: &quot;All of the political explanations and contortions in the world aren't going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.&quot; We've heard all this before. What Obama needs to say is that Hillary deliberately uses his &quot;politics of hope&quot; message as a shield against criticism. If Obama is going to stay in the debate, he can't let Hillary define the terms. Especially when he coined them. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 26,&nbsp;11:48 a.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#hopeless">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Oct. 25, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>The assassination primary:</a></strong> One of the best ways for a politician to boost his popularity is to get assassinated. It worked for Lincoln, it worked for Kennedy. (And who doesn't adore <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Garfield">James Garfield</a>?) Even better is an assassination attempt. That way, you get to enjoy the good press. Just ask Ronald Reagan. Best of all, though, is an assassination attempt <em>attempt</em>. Someone thought you were worth killing, but didn't follow through, giving you all the cred but none of the scars. Apparently that's what happened to Rudy Giuliani. </p>
<p>It turns out a group of New York crime bosses <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/10/25/2007-10-25_court_told_mob_bosses_voted_on_whacking_-1.html">nearly voted to whack</a> Giuliani back in 1986, when he was a U.S. attorney prosecuting cases against the mob. The heads of five families voted 3 to 2 to spare him, according to testimony Wednesday at the trial of an FBI agent in Brooklyn. &quot;That was one vote I won I guess,&quot; Giuliani told radio host Mike Gallagher today. </p>
<p>For someone cultivating an image as the toughest candidate in the Republican pool, it doesn't hurt for voters to know some bad guys wanted you dead. (Imagine what it would do for Rudy's campaign if Osama bin Laden released a video begging the American people not to elect him.) Giuliani has also gone out of his way to act presidential, meeting with leaders from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wrudy120.xml">Gordon Brown</a> to <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/giuliani-to-meet-with-iraqi-president-talabani/">Jalal Talabani</a> and pitching himself as a foreign-policy savant. A would-be assassination attempt—even one that took place years ago—only solidifies the image. </p>
<p>People say Giuliani values loyalty. Maybe he should hire the three guys who voted to spare him. Vote Giuliani: an offer you can't refuse.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 25,&nbsp;5:08 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#assassination">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Caucus </strong> <a><strong>Neglect</strong></a><strong>:</strong> As states <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6550.html">wage war</a> over which primary or caucus will be first in the nation, Nevada is being left behind. For the first time in its history, the Silver State will host the second caucus in the country on Jan. 19. And yet, nobody seems to care.</p>
<p><em><strong>Slate</strong></em>'s <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175817/">Map the Candidates</a> tool shows an apathetic bunch of candidates. In total, they've only made 55 campaign stops in Nevada since July 1, according to their public schedules (excluding Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel, who don't make their schedules public). That's both parties' tallies <em>combined</em>. To give some context, South Carolina has had 145 stops in that time period. New Hampshire? 415. Iowa? An obscene 966 stops! The candidates have even visited Florida 78 times, despite this summer's <a href="http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070905/NEWS/709050652/1017/NEWS0501">abstinence pledge</a> from the top Democrats.</p>
<p>A closer look at the 55 Nevada stops reveals a heavy Democratic bias. All six of the first- and second-tier Democrats have stopped by the Silver State, but only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have stumped for the GOP. Yes, more GOP candidates have <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174597/#wyomingGOP">visited Wyoming</a> than Nevada. For what it's worth, Nevada GOP Executive Director Zac Moyle told me he was happy with the turnout and said several other candidates are coming in November.</p>
<p>Why no love for Nevada? Initially, both parties booked Nevada's caucus earlier in the primary season so the state would serve as the election's gateway to the West. But then Nevada's neighbors California (90 visits since July 1), Utah, and Arizona set their primary dates to Feb. 5, which reduced Nevada's regional clout. Plus, polls for the <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Democrats</a> show Hillary Clinton in command even though Bill Richardson is from nearby New Mexico and has spent the most time in the state. No excuses across the aisle, though. The <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Rep-Pres-Primary.php">GOP's numbers</a> are much tighter than the Democrats', which makes the leading Republicans' absences even more glaring.</p>
<p>Some solace for Nevada residents: The Democrats are coming to town for a debate next month. Just don't expect them to stay the night.</p>
<p>Want more? Get a closer look at <a href="http://www.slate.com/features/mapthecandidates/?l=NV">Nevada's sparse</a> political landscape compared to <a href="http://www.slate.com/features/mapthecandidates/?l=IA">Iowa's gluttonous</a> display. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 25,&nbsp;3:00 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#nevada">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>I'm John Edwards, and I Did Not Approve This Message:</a></strong> Today a major environmental group, Friends of the Earth, starts airing a new radio ad in New Hampshire praising John Edwards' stance on global warming. (The group <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYMlPgLe4X8">formally endorsed</a> him last week.) Edwards, according to the ad, is &quot;alone among the candidates&quot; in asking Americans to sacrifice and conserve energy. Listen <a href="https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/foe/images/humanity.mp3">here</a>. </p>
<p>It's not the first independently financed spot to run in this campaign—the Log Cabin Republicans already aired a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4">Romney attack ad</a> in Iowa—but it is one of the first to straightforwardly endorse a candidate. FoE figured that New Hampshire, which is seeing its ski seasons <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925458/">shortening</a> and its maple syrup seasons <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/03/22/warming_trend_blamed_for_syrup_season_change/">thrown off-kilter</a>, would be a good place to deliver his message of reducing emissions and opposing nuclear power. </p>
<p>For Edwards especially, independent ads could make a big difference. His decision last month to take public matching funds mean that he's subject to spending limits. In New Hampshire, he <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2007.shtml">can't spend</a> more than about $800,000 on campaign expenses such as advertising and phone banking. Independently financed ads, meanwhile, have no spending limits, as long as they're not funded by corporations or unions. (They're also not allowed to coordinate with the campaign.) FoE says this ad won't be its last. </p>
<p>Not that Edwards is relying on outside advertising. Eric Shultz, a spokesman for the Edwards campaign, emphasized that the campaign has all the money it needs to execute its strategy. But with Hillary and Obama surging ahead in fund raising, Edwards will have to spend efficiently to compete in the early states' ad markets. And with his New Hampshire numbers <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/">lagging</a> behind his two top rivals', a little help from his friends won't hurt. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 25,&nbsp;1:44 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#boozers">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 24, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Levin vs. Gardner</a></strong>: Michigan Sen. Carl Levin <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6521.html">refuses to play nice</a>. Acting as if he has a vendetta against the entire Granite State, Levin has once again reached out across the news wires and slapped New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner across the face. In a meeting with reporters this morning, Levin criticized New Hampshire's &quot;cockamamie&quot; election status and said he wants Michigan Democrats to hold a caucus on the same day as New Hampshire's primary. </p>
<p>This is all fallout from Michigan's effort to upend the primary process by leapfrogging New Hampshire. Michigan's move to Jan. 15 forced Gardner to delay the disclosure of New Hampshire's date so no other state would try to usurp its first-in-the-nation status. Michigan, meanwhile, saw <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175470/#showdown">all but three</a> Democrats pull out of its primary because the state wasn't one of the four sanctioned early primary states. Levin seems to consider himself and his state martyrs, crucified for their principled stand against the villainous Yankees in Manchester. The <em>Detroit News</em> <a href="http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/UPDATE/710240472">quoted</a> him as saying, &quot;New Hampshire has a hammerlock on the process. … We decided we were going to try to change that. We knew we would pay a price for that.&quot; How valiant! </p>
<p>Gardner, meanwhile, is playing Batman to Levin's <a href="http://daw.dyndns.org/images/movies/posters/batman%20returns.jpg">Penguin</a>. Gardner's stoic, above-the-fray demeanor makes Levin appear all the more a blowhard. By the way, the final decision is up to Michigan's governor—not Michigan's senator.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;6:45 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#levin">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Boozers for Barack:</a></strong> Who knew that Barack Obama could find allies in college drinkers? There's a fascinating showdown in Iowa over underage bar laws that could, possibly maybe, end up affecting the presidential election. </p>
<p>Residents of Iowa City, home to the University of Iowa, have <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-drink_jonesoct22,0,7570426.story">submitted</a> a ballot measure that would kick anyone under 21 out of the city's bars after 10 p.m. That might sound reasonable in most cities. But currently anyone 19 and over can hang out at Iowa City bars—although they still can't (technically) drink till they're 21. Community members concerned about the neighborhood's safety and appearance are backing the ordinance. On the other side, you've got students looking to defend their right to drink cranberry juice and ginger ale in bars. The measure appears on the ballot Nov. 6. </p>
<p>As voting day approaches, both sides are mobilizing. A group called Citizens Against Students Ruining Downtown <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/NEWS/710200340/1001/COMM10">staged</a> a &quot;vomit walk&quot; Sunday night to protest the sullying of the neighborhood. Health advocates are also pushing the ordinance since they say it would cut down on binge drinking. </p>
<p>Students are likewise miffed. At the University of Iowa, Republicans and Democrats alike have been conducting nonpartisan voter registration drives and setting up voting stations in the residence halls. Even students at other schools, many of whom travel to Iowa City to drink, are <a href="http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2007/06/14/Opinion/Garringer.Ames.Bar.Rules.Trump.Iowa.Citys-2914937.shtml">speaking out</a>. The result, if the organization effort works, is that more young people than usual will be registered to vote in Iowa on Nov. 6. And that means more young people registered in time for the caucuses. </p>
<p>This could be good news for Obama. In the past few elections, most Iowa caucus-goers have been older than 50. But this time around, Obama's campaign is putting <a href="http://blog.syracuse.com/voices/2007/10/presidential_candidates_turnin.html">special emphasis on young people</a>, organizing high school groups called &quot;BarackStars&quot; and urging college students to register. So far, Obama's Iowa ground organization <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071023/NEWS/71023049/1001/RSS01">outmatches</a> that of his opponents. If he's able to get a boost from the Iowa City party scene, bully for him.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;6:27 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#boozers">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>The <a>Fringe</a>, Part 4</strong>:<em> This is the fourth entry in &quot;The Fringe,&quot; a periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. You can find previous entries </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#Fringe"><em>here</em></a><em>, </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringetwo"><em>here</em></a><em>, and </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringethree"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p> <a href="http://tomkoos2008.com/">Tom Koos</a> gets it. He knows that a 41-year old facilities manager from California isn't going to win the Democratic nomination. He understands it's unlikely he'll even earn a delegate in New Hampshire, where he'll only campaign for a week before the primary. But he's not running for president to become president. He's running so he can figure out who to vote for.</p>
<p>Koos has wanted to become president since he was 7. He looked up at the calendar and realized that he'd be 35 by 2000, which meant that in 28 short years, he could be taking the oath of office. So, in 2000, he threw his name in the ring.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm#NH">Nineteen people</a> voted for him—one more than the Fringe's last subject, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringethree">Michael Skok</a>. </p>
<p>Considering Koos finished 76,881 New Hampshire votes behind <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175784/">Al Gore</a> in 2000, what is there to gain by running again? Koos told me he wanted to get a better sense of what his&nbsp; own opinions were on the election's major issues so he would know which candidate to endorse. </p>
<p>As a result, Koos' platform is essentially a composite of his opponents' stances. Like <a href="http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009">Joe Biden</a>, he wants a soft-partitioned Iraq. Like <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070728/D8QLQ3880.html">Hillary Clinton</a>, he supports a national-service academy. And like <a href="http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/">Dennis Kucinich</a>, he advocates a universal, single-payer health-care system. He's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron">Voltron</a> of presidential candidates.</p>
<p>Does this mean Koos is once again embarking on a selfish, self-indulgent pursuit? Perhaps. But he said he's also running to try and convince his friends and family to pay attention to the elections. When he tells people he's running for president, he gets to discuss current events and politics with relative strangers. Plus, he said, running for president is &quot;an awful lot of fun.&quot; Some might call it a midlife crisis, but Koos thinks of it as a boyhood dream. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;4:30 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fringefour">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Rudy's Sinker:</a></strong> Politics is about compromise. Voters know this, and politicians know they know it. That's why they'll often bend their position to accommodate a new situation without paying a political price. </p>
<p>Sports, however, is not about compromise. It's not about sacrificing now so you can win later. It's about winning now, later, and always. It's starkly Manichaean—the one arena where you can say, &quot;You're with us or against us,&quot; and no one will accuse you of being overly dramatic. </p>
<p>Rudy Giuliani, of all people, should understand this. But by announcing in Boston yesterday that he would&nbsp;be <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/giuliani-roots-for-red-sox/">rooting for the Red Sox</a> in the World Series, he joins Hillary Clinton in the league of athletic opportunists he so roundly criticized last month. &quot;Don't you respect me for telling you the truth that I'm a Yankees fan?&quot; he asked a crowd in Chicago after Clinton said that she'd &quot;alternate&quot; sides in a Yankees-Cubs match-up. Well, whatever respect he commanded then, he has&nbsp;squandered now. The New York tabs are calling him a &quot;Red Coat&quot; and a &quot;Traitor&quot; for abandoning his home team. And believe it or not, it still doesn't look like he'll be carrying Massacusetts.</p>
<p>Giuliani's rationalization only made the offense worse: &quot;I'm an American League fan, and my tradition has been to root for the American League team, particularly if it's a team that beats the Yankees. And in this case, you won the division and we lost. Somehow it makes me feel better if the team that was ahead of the Yankees wins the World Series, because then I feel like, well, we're not that bad.&quot;</p>
<p>Et tu, Rudy?</p>
<p>Barack Obama, playing off Giuliani's gaffe, told a Boston crowd he was a &quot;principled sports fan&quot; and supported the White Sox. But candidates should really avoid talking about sports altogether. For one thing, you're not likely to win votes from the people whose teams you praise. If anything, it comes off as pandering. But also, even a hint of ambiguity—the least bit of waffling—amounts to heresy. Giuliani's situational Red Sox fandom makes Romney's abortion flip-flopping look forgivable. He might as well have said he'd ask his lawyers. Let this be a lesson: Baseball is the one issue on which you can't be&nbsp;moderate. Giuliani picked the wrong time to&nbsp;act like one.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;2:44 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#sinker">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Taking care of business:</a></strong> If Mitt Romney is elected, he'll be the <em>real</em> MBA president. That's what you're supposed to take away from his latest ad, &quot;Business World,&quot; in which he promises to &quot;audit Washington top to bottom and cut spending.&quot; He did it at the 2002 Olympics, he did it as governor of Massachusetts (he doesn't mention the state by name), and he'll do it again as commander in chief. Need proof? Look, he's shaking hands with people. Now he's pointing to some charts. OK, there's the sleeve roll-up. Can you feel the synergy? Have a look:</p>
<p>The efficiency spiel is what fiscal conservatives want to hear, and Romney smoothly works it into his &quot;change begins with us&quot; theme. But it also reinforces perceptions of Romney as MR-1000, the kindly autobot whose CPU needs recharging every night. He has a knack for making warm themes sound cold. At last week's Family Research Council conference, he stressed that &quot;family is a vital economic unit.&quot; Well, yes, but that's probably not how values voters think of their spouses and children. It's no surprise Ann Romney was the one narrating the campaign's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOHPTESZpI">family-themed ad</a> &quot;Our Home.&quot;</p>
<p>You also have to wonder whether a r&eacute;sum&eacute; built on business acumen is any match for one built on crime-fighting and security, like Rudy Giuliani's. (According to their messages, at least.) Does anyone care deeply that Romney saved the Olympics? It was a major accomplishment, by all accounts, and earned him plaudits from businessmen and politicians alike. But when you say it over and over, it starts to sound like Fred Thompson ushering John Roberts through the confirmation process—an accomplishment John Dickerson <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162844/">called</a> &quot;the legal equivalent of walking Michael Jordan onto the court.&quot; Compared to Giuliani at Ground Zero, Romney in the board room isn't the most compelling image. At the FRC conference, the day after Romney spoke, conservative leader Bill Bennett urged&nbsp;voters to listen to their hearts. If Romney is lucky, they'll&nbsp;stick with their heads.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;1:04 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#business">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:09:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/joe_the_optimist.htmlChristopher BeamChadwick Matlin2007-10-29T16:09:00ZFor Biden, hope springs eternal.News and PoliticsFor Joe Biden, hope springs eternal.2176859Christopher BeamChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2176859falsefalsefalseFor Joe Biden, hope springs eternal.For Joe Biden, hope springs eternal.Presidential candidates seek extraterrestrial lifeThe Fringe, Part 5http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/the_fringe_part_5.html
<p><em><strong> The <a>Fringe</a>, Part 5:</strong></em> This is the fifth entry in &quot;The Fringe,&quot; a periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. Read Parts <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175960/#Fringe">1</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175960/#fringetwo">2</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringethree">3</a>, and <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringefour">4</a>.</p>
<p>Cap Fendig is the fringe man's Mike Huckabee. The Republican presidential candidate wants to keep the troops in Iraq, supports the fair tax, and promotes pro-life policies. But while Huckabee's profile continues to rise, Cap Fendig is hoping to grab four percent of the votes in Iowa, at most. That's what happens when the highest public office you've held is county commissioner.</p>
<p>The 53-year-old man certainly looks presidential, and speaks in a southern drawl that would make John Edwards swoon. <a href="http://www.capfendig.com/index.html">His high-quality Web site</a> has pictures of him and his wife looking like the all-American couple—complete with an out-of-focus background to imply Fendig is a stark contrast to the murky America that surrounds us all. </p>
<p>Fendig recently sold his tour company in Georgia to fund his campaign, but it was his business that inspired him to run in the first place. He said his platform consists of policies the &quot;American people&quot; want. Of course, most of those Americans are his conservative tour clientele.</p>
<p>Fendig is not ashamed to tell you that he thinks the constitution ought to be changed. First up, the Fair Tax, which would repeal the 16<sup>th</sup> amendment that allows the government to collect an income tax. Next, he wants to solve the immigration problem by scrapping pieces of the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment. Under the Fendig administration, babies born in the&nbsp;United States&nbsp;would no longer be automatic U.S. citizens. Their parents would have to be citizens, as well. Unclear on whether America would make it a habit of deporting children before they leave the hospital. Oh, and don't forget to tack on a gay marriage amendment while you're at it. (Fendig said homosexuality is a lifestyle choice America cannot endorse but should protect.)</p>
<p>Constitutional changes aside, Fendig is making <a href="http://www.capfendig.com/platform.html">one novel recommendation</a>: He wants to impose term limits on congressmen so that the legislative branch has a &quot;rotation of fresh ideas and energy.&quot; </p>
<p>Fendig, though, has more pressing concerns—like getting people to take him seriously. When Fendig delivered his official announcement speech at a county meeting, the <a href="http://www.thebrunswicknews.com/CAP.php">video</a> shows that the woman sitting behind him couldn't help but let loose a laugh. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 26,&nbsp;6:07 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fringefive">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>All aboard:</a></strong> The Republican presidential candidates may have found the perfect enemy: the Law of the Sea Treaty. The treaty, a U.N. convention ratified by 150 countries in 1994 but not by the United States, sets rules for navigating international waters, governs economic activity therein, and also establishes certain environmental standards. And, if you ask the GOP candidates, it must be stopped.</p>
<p>Mike Huckabee <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176629/">told</a><strong><em>Slate</em></strong>'s John Dickerson that the Law of the Sea has &quot;damaging and dangerous implications for our national sovereignty.&quot; Fred Thompson <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZlNzY3OWYxZmM0YTMyNmM3MjJiY2YzMjFjYzgzODY=">said</a> earlier this week that the law &quot;gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests.&quot; <a href="http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/mccain_would_oppose_law_of_the_sea_treaty">John McCain</a> and <a href="http://campaignemails.blogspot.com/2007/10/hunter-calls-on-congress-kill-law-of.html">Duncan Hunter</a> have spoken out against the treaty as well. </p>
<p>The candidates know they can get mileage out of the treaty. For one thing, it just sounds silly. Who wants to submit to something called the Law of the Sea Treaty? If you violate it, do they make you walk the plank? (Also note the acronym: LOST.) </p>
<p>But more to the point, it gives them an opportunity to rail against international law. Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because of a provision about mineral mining, but since then the United States&nbsp;has followed the treaty in practice (minus the mining part). President Clinton signed it, but the Republican Congress didn't pass it. President Bush currently supports it, as do the U.S. Navy and the oil industry. (It gives the United States a seat at the table on issues like the Arctic's oil resources, which has enjoyed a resurgence&nbsp;ever since&nbsp;Russia <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm">planted its flag </a> there.) In other words, there's very little reason for a Republican not to support the treaty, except to show his general opposition to international law. </p>
<p>And that's just what the GOP candidates want. For them, opposing the Law of the Sea isn't a practical matter. It's ideological. It's about making clear that no one else tells us what to do. Even if they did support it, who wants to be the one guy explaining the intricacies of the 200-page Law of the Sea at the next debate? No, better to make vague noises about national sovereignty, <a href="http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/National_Journal-19Oct07.pdf">invoke Ronald Reagan</a> once or twice, and be done with it.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 26,&nbsp;4:57 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#allaboard">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Hopeless:</a></strong> In the <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/26/432488.aspx">already</a> &nbsp; <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Another_round_on_Iran.html">much</a>- <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/clinton-e-mail-hits-obama-on-iran/">publicized</a> e-mail blitz yesterday by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the Iran debate is taking a turn for the ugly.</p>
<p>After President Bush announced sanctions on Iran's military, Obama's camp sent out a statement insisting that &quot;these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran&quot; and suggesting that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which Hillary voted for, does this. Hillary blasted back with a <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Another_round_on_Iran.html">memo</a>: &quot;Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton.&quot;</p>
<p>As the Iran showdown escalates—both campaigns <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#redux">sent out mailers</a> on the issue this week—Obama appears to be pedaling against the wind. As many have pointed out, Clinton took pains to make sure the bill didn't include authorization of military force. And as Clinton herself notes, where was Obama during that vote? </p>
<p>But still, Clinton's tactics come off as downright nasty. Her word of choice to describe opposing campaigns used to be <em>flagging</em>. Now it's <em>stagnant</em>. (May we suggest <em>flaccid</em>?) At the same time, Hillary is still using Obama's coinage, the &quot;politics of hope,&quot; against him. Obama originally intended the phrase to mean avoiding personal attacks. But over the past weeks, Hillary has redefined it as avoiding attacks on her policies. By conflating the two, she implies that Obama is becoming a bully and, in the process, abandoning his principles. She has turned his promise of civility into a straightjacket. </p>
<p>Obama should be calling her out on this. If Hillary is going to try and make all policy attacks sound personal, Obama should point out that strategy and rebuff it. Obama spokesman Bill Burton's reponse, sent to reporters yesterday evening, fails to do this: &quot;All of the political explanations and contortions in the world aren't going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.&quot; We've heard all this before. What Obama needs to say is that Hillary deliberately uses his &quot;politics of hope&quot; message as a shield against criticism. If Obama is going to stay in the debate, he can't let Hillary define the terms. Especially when he coined them. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 26,&nbsp;11:48 a.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#hopeless">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Oct. 25, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>The assassination primary:</a></strong> One of the best ways for a politician to boost his popularity is to get assassinated. It worked for Lincoln, it worked for Kennedy. (And who doesn't adore <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Garfield">James Garfield</a>?) Even better is an assassination attempt. That way, you get to enjoy the good press. Just ask Ronald Reagan. Best of all, though, is an assassination attempt <em>attempt</em>. Someone thought you were worth killing, but didn't follow through, giving you all the cred but none of the scars. Apparently that's what happened to Rudy Giuliani. </p>
<p>It turns out a group of New York crime bosses <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/10/25/2007-10-25_court_told_mob_bosses_voted_on_whacking_-1.html">nearly voted to whack</a> Giuliani back in 1986, when he was a U.S. attorney prosecuting cases against the mob. The heads of five families voted 3 to 2 to spare him, according to testimony Wednesday at the trial of an FBI agent in Brooklyn. &quot;That was one vote I won I guess,&quot; Giuliani told radio host Mike Gallagher today. </p>
<p>For someone cultivating an image as the toughest candidate in the Republican pool, it doesn't hurt for voters to know some bad guys wanted you dead. (Imagine what it would do for Rudy's campaign if Osama bin Laden released a video begging the American people not to elect him.) Giuliani has also gone out of his way to act presidential, meeting with leaders from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wrudy120.xml">Gordon Brown</a> to <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/giuliani-to-meet-with-iraqi-president-talabani/">Jalal Talabani</a> and pitching himself as a foreign-policy savant. A would-be assassination attempt—even one that took place years ago—only solidifies the image. </p>
<p>People say Giuliani values loyalty. Maybe he should hire the three guys who voted to spare him. Vote Giuliani: an offer you can't refuse.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 25,&nbsp;5:08 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#assassination">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Caucus </strong> <a><strong>Neglect</strong></a><strong>:</strong> As states <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6550.html">wage war</a> over which primary or caucus will be first in the nation, Nevada is being left behind. For the first time in its history, the Silver State will host the second caucus in the country on Jan. 19. And yet, nobody seems to care.</p>
<p><em><strong>Slate</strong></em>'s <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175817/">Map the Candidates</a> tool shows an apathetic bunch of candidates. In total, they've only made 55 campaign stops in Nevada since July 1, according to their public schedules (excluding Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel, who don't make their schedules public). That's both parties' tallies <em>combined</em>. To give some context, South Carolina has had 145 stops in that time period. New Hampshire? 415. Iowa? An obscene 966 stops! The candidates have even visited Florida 78 times, despite this summer's <a href="http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070905/NEWS/709050652/1017/NEWS0501">abstinence pledge</a> from the top Democrats.</p>
<p>A closer look at the 55 Nevada stops reveals a heavy Democratic bias. All six of the first- and second-tier Democrats have stopped by the Silver State, but only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have stumped for the GOP. Yes, more GOP candidates have <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174597/#wyomingGOP">visited Wyoming</a> than Nevada. For what it's worth, Nevada GOP Executive Director Zac Moyle told me he was happy with the turnout and said several other candidates are coming in November.</p>
<p>Why no love for Nevada? Initially, both parties booked Nevada's caucus earlier in the primary season so the state would serve as the election's gateway to the West. But then Nevada's neighbors California (90 visits since July 1), Utah, and Arizona set their primary dates to Feb. 5, which reduced Nevada's regional clout. Plus, polls for the <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">Democrats</a> show Hillary Clinton in command even though Bill Richardson is from nearby New Mexico and has spent the most time in the state. No excuses across the aisle, though. The <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Rep-Pres-Primary.php">GOP's numbers</a> are much tighter than the Democrats', which makes the leading Republicans' absences even more glaring.</p>
<p>Some solace for Nevada residents: The Democrats are coming to town for a debate next month. Just don't expect them to stay the night.</p>
<p>Want more? Get a closer look at <a href="http://www.slate.com/features/mapthecandidates/?l=NV">Nevada's sparse</a> political landscape compared to <a href="http://www.slate.com/features/mapthecandidates/?l=IA">Iowa's gluttonous</a> display. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 25,&nbsp;3:00 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#nevada">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>I'm John Edwards, and I Did Not Approve This Message:</a></strong> Today a major environmental group, Friends of the Earth, starts airing a new radio ad in New Hampshire praising John Edwards' stance on global warming. (The group <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYMlPgLe4X8">formally endorsed</a> him last week.) Edwards, according to the ad, is &quot;alone among the candidates&quot; in asking Americans to sacrifice and conserve energy. Listen <a href="https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/foe/images/humanity.mp3">here</a>. </p>
<p>It's not the first independently financed spot to run in this campaign—the Log Cabin Republicans already aired a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4">Romney attack ad</a> in Iowa—but it is one of the first to straightforwardly endorse a candidate. FoE figured that New Hampshire, which is seeing its ski seasons <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925458/">shortening</a> and its maple syrup seasons <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/03/22/warming_trend_blamed_for_syrup_season_change/">thrown off-kilter</a>, would be a good place to deliver his message of reducing emissions and opposing nuclear power. </p>
<p>For Edwards especially, independent ads could make a big difference. His decision last month to take public matching funds mean that he's subject to spending limits. In New Hampshire, he <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2007.shtml">can't spend</a> more than about $800,000 on campaign expenses such as advertising and phone banking. Independently financed ads, meanwhile, have no spending limits, as long as they're not funded by corporations or unions. (They're also not allowed to coordinate with the campaign.) FoE says this ad won't be its last. </p>
<p>Not that Edwards is relying on outside advertising. Eric Shultz, a spokesman for the Edwards campaign, emphasized that the campaign has all the money it needs to execute its strategy. But with Hillary and Obama surging ahead in fund raising, Edwards will have to spend efficiently to compete in the early states' ad markets. And with his New Hampshire numbers <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/">lagging</a> behind his two top rivals', a little help from his friends won't hurt. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 25,&nbsp;1:44 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#boozers">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 24, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Levin vs. Gardner</a></strong>: Michigan Sen. Carl Levin <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6521.html">refuses to play nice</a>. Acting as if he has a vendetta against the entire Granite State, Levin has once again reached out across the news wires and slapped New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner across the face. In a meeting with reporters this morning, Levin criticized New Hampshire's &quot;cockamamie&quot; election status and said he wants Michigan Democrats to hold a caucus on the same day as New Hampshire's primary. </p>
<p>This is all fallout from Michigan's effort to upend the primary process by leapfrogging New Hampshire. Michigan's move to Jan. 15 forced Gardner to delay the disclosure of New Hampshire's date so no other state would try to usurp its first-in-the-nation status. Michigan, meanwhile, saw <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175470/#showdown">all but three</a> Democrats pull out of its primary because the state wasn't one of the four sanctioned early primary states. Levin seems to consider himself and his state martyrs, crucified for their principled stand against the villainous Yankees in Manchester. The <em>Detroit News</em> <a href="http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/UPDATE/710240472">quoted</a> him as saying, &quot;New Hampshire has a hammerlock on the process. … We decided we were going to try to change that. We knew we would pay a price for that.&quot; How valiant! </p>
<p>Gardner, meanwhile, is playing Batman to Levin's <a href="http://daw.dyndns.org/images/movies/posters/batman%20returns.jpg">Penguin</a>. Gardner's stoic, above-the-fray demeanor makes Levin appear all the more a blowhard. By the way, the final decision is up to Michigan's governor—not Michigan's senator.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;6:45 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#levin">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Boozers for Barack:</a></strong> Who knew that Barack Obama could find allies in college drinkers? There's a fascinating showdown in Iowa over underage bar laws that could, possibly maybe, end up affecting the presidential election. </p>
<p>Residents of Iowa City, home to the University of Iowa, have <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-drink_jonesoct22,0,7570426.story">submitted</a> a ballot measure that would kick anyone under 21 out of the city's bars after 10 p.m. That might sound reasonable in most cities. But currently anyone 19 and over can hang out at Iowa City bars—although they still can't (technically) drink till they're 21. Community members concerned about the neighborhood's safety and appearance are backing the ordinance. On the other side, you've got students looking to defend their right to drink cranberry juice and ginger ale in bars. The measure appears on the ballot Nov. 6. </p>
<p>As voting day approaches, both sides are mobilizing. A group called Citizens Against Students Ruining Downtown <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/NEWS/710200340/1001/COMM10">staged</a> a &quot;vomit walk&quot; Sunday night to protest the sullying of the neighborhood. Health advocates are also pushing the ordinance since they say it would cut down on binge drinking. </p>
<p>Students are likewise miffed. At the University of Iowa, Republicans and Democrats alike have been conducting nonpartisan voter registration drives and setting up voting stations in the residence halls. Even students at other schools, many of whom travel to Iowa City to drink, are <a href="http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2007/06/14/Opinion/Garringer.Ames.Bar.Rules.Trump.Iowa.Citys-2914937.shtml">speaking out</a>. The result, if the organization effort works, is that more young people than usual will be registered to vote in Iowa on Nov. 6. And that means more young people registered in time for the caucuses. </p>
<p>This could be good news for Obama. In the past few elections, most Iowa caucus-goers have been older than 50. But this time around, Obama's campaign is putting <a href="http://blog.syracuse.com/voices/2007/10/presidential_candidates_turnin.html">special emphasis on young people</a>, organizing high school groups called &quot;BarackStars&quot; and urging college students to register. So far, Obama's Iowa ground organization <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071023/NEWS/71023049/1001/RSS01">outmatches</a> that of his opponents. If he's able to get a boost from the Iowa City party scene, bully for him.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;6:27 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#boozers">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>The <a>Fringe</a>, Part 4</strong>:<em> This is the fourth entry in &quot;The Fringe,&quot; a periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. You can find previous entries </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#Fringe"><em>here</em></a><em>, </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringetwo"><em>here</em></a><em>, and </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringethree"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p> <a href="http://tomkoos2008.com/">Tom Koos</a> gets it. He knows that a 41-year old facilities manager from California isn't going to win the Democratic nomination. He understands it's unlikely he'll even earn a delegate in New Hampshire, where he'll only campaign for a week before the primary. But he's not running for president to become president. He's running so he can figure out who to vote for.</p>
<p>Koos has wanted to become president since he was 7. He looked up at the calendar and realized that he'd be 35 by 2000, which meant that in 28 short years, he could be taking the oath of office. So, in 2000, he threw his name in the ring.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm#NH">Nineteen people</a> voted for him—one more than the Fringe's last subject, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringethree">Michael Skok</a>. </p>
<p>Considering Koos finished 76,881 New Hampshire votes behind <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175784/">Al Gore</a> in 2000, what is there to gain by running again? Koos told me he wanted to get a better sense of what his&nbsp; own opinions were on the election's major issues so he would know which candidate to endorse. </p>
<p>As a result, Koos' platform is essentially a composite of his opponents' stances. Like <a href="http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009">Joe Biden</a>, he wants a soft-partitioned Iraq. Like <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070728/D8QLQ3880.html">Hillary Clinton</a>, he supports a national-service academy. And like <a href="http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/">Dennis Kucinich</a>, he advocates a universal, single-payer health-care system. He's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron">Voltron</a> of presidential candidates.</p>
<p>Does this mean Koos is once again embarking on a selfish, self-indulgent pursuit? Perhaps. But he said he's also running to try and convince his friends and family to pay attention to the elections. When he tells people he's running for president, he gets to discuss current events and politics with relative strangers. Plus, he said, running for president is &quot;an awful lot of fun.&quot; Some might call it a midlife crisis, but Koos thinks of it as a boyhood dream. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;4:30 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fringefour">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Rudy's Sinker:</a></strong> Politics is about compromise. Voters know this, and politicians know they know it. That's why they'll often bend their position to accommodate a new situation without paying a political price. </p>
<p>Sports, however, is not about compromise. It's not about sacrificing now so you can win later. It's about winning now, later, and always. It's starkly Manichaean—the one arena where you can say, &quot;You're with us or against us,&quot; and no one will accuse you of being overly dramatic. </p>
<p>Rudy Giuliani, of all people, should understand this. But by announcing in Boston yesterday that he would&nbsp;be <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/giuliani-roots-for-red-sox/">rooting for the Red Sox</a> in the World Series, he joins Hillary Clinton in the league of athletic opportunists he so roundly criticized last month. &quot;Don't you respect me for telling you the truth that I'm a Yankees fan?&quot; he asked a crowd in Chicago after Clinton said that she'd &quot;alternate&quot; sides in a Yankees-Cubs match-up. Well, whatever respect he commanded then, he has&nbsp;squandered now. The New York tabs are calling him a &quot;Red Coat&quot; and a &quot;Traitor&quot; for abandoning his home team. And believe it or not, it still doesn't look like he'll be carrying Massacusetts.</p>
<p>Giuliani's rationalization only made the offense worse: &quot;I'm an American League fan, and my tradition has been to root for the American League team, particularly if it's a team that beats the Yankees. And in this case, you won the division and we lost. Somehow it makes me feel better if the team that was ahead of the Yankees wins the World Series, because then I feel like, well, we're not that bad.&quot;</p>
<p>Et tu, Rudy?</p>
<p>Barack Obama, playing off Giuliani's gaffe, told a Boston crowd he was a &quot;principled sports fan&quot; and supported the White Sox. But candidates should really avoid talking about sports altogether. For one thing, you're not likely to win votes from the people whose teams you praise. If anything, it comes off as pandering. But also, even a hint of ambiguity—the least bit of waffling—amounts to heresy. Giuliani's situational Red Sox fandom makes Romney's abortion flip-flopping look forgivable. He might as well have said he'd ask his lawyers. Let this be a lesson: Baseball is the one issue on which you can't be&nbsp;moderate. Giuliani picked the wrong time to&nbsp;act like one.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;2:44 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#sinker">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Taking care of business:</a></strong> If Mitt Romney is elected, he'll be the <em>real</em> MBA president. That's what you're supposed to take away from his latest ad, &quot;Business World,&quot; in which he promises to &quot;audit Washington top to bottom and cut spending.&quot; He did it at the 2002 Olympics, he did it as governor of Massachusetts (he doesn't mention the state by name), and he'll do it again as commander in chief. Need proof? Look, he's shaking hands with people. Now he's pointing to some charts. OK, there's the sleeve roll-up. Can you feel the synergy? Have a look:</p>
<p>The efficiency spiel is what fiscal conservatives want to hear, and Romney smoothly works it into his &quot;change begins with us&quot; theme. But it also reinforces perceptions of Romney as MR-1000, the kindly autobot whose CPU needs recharging every night. He has a knack for making warm themes sound cold. At last week's Family Research Council conference, he stressed that &quot;family is a vital economic unit.&quot; Well, yes, but that's probably not how values voters think of their spouses and children. It's no surprise Ann Romney was the one narrating the campaign's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOHPTESZpI">family-themed ad</a> &quot;Our Home.&quot;</p>
<p>You also have to wonder whether a r&eacute;sum&eacute; built on business acumen is any match for one built on crime-fighting and security, like Rudy Giuliani's. (According to their messages, at least.) Does anyone care deeply that Romney saved the Olympics? It was a major accomplishment, by all accounts, and earned him plaudits from businessmen and politicians alike. But when you say it over and over, it starts to sound like Fred Thompson ushering John Roberts through the confirmation process—an accomplishment John Dickerson <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2162844/">called</a> &quot;the legal equivalent of walking Michael Jordan onto the court.&quot; Compared to Giuliani at Ground Zero, Romney in the board room isn't the most compelling image. At the FRC conference, the day after Romney spoke, conservative leader Bill Bennett urged&nbsp;voters to listen to their hearts. If Romney is lucky, they'll&nbsp;stick with their heads.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 24,&nbsp;1:04 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#business">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 23, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Will Rogers:</a></strong> It's been a week since Stephen Colbert <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFzxF7XLwi7Il2DVEE6la0NVo--gD8SAP1MO0">announced</a> his presidential candidacy on his show (video <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38al2_stephen-colbert-running-for-preside_shortfilms">here</a>), and he's already attracted enough <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/arts/television/18colb.html">media attention</a> to make a second-tier candidates steam. He has&nbsp;guest written a column for the <em>Times</em>, received <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6450.html">legal advice</a>, and even inspired a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710u/colbert-campaign/2">campaign strategy</a> drawn up by the <em>Atlantic</em>'s Josh Green. But instead of the usual <em>Is he or isn't he?</em> game of presidential bids, it's more like <em>Is he or isn't he serious?</em></p>
<p>A few people have compared Colbert's candidacy to that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen">Pat Paulsen</a>, the comedian who ran on the Straight-Talking American Government ticket in 1968 with the promise that &quot;If elected, I will win.&quot; But Paulsen wasn't the first, either. Back in 1928, humorist Will Rogers announced his presidential bid on the &quot;Anti-Bunk Party&quot; ticket in a column for <em>Life</em> magazine. His campaign promise was essentially the opposite of Paulsen's: If elected, he would resign. He later challenged Herbert Hoover to a joint debate &quot;in any joint you name.&quot; </p>
<p>The difference between Colbert and Rogers is that Rogers insisted he was running in jest. &quot;Now when that is done as a joke it is alright,&quot; he wrote. &quot;But when it's done seriously, it's just pathetic.&quot; But that didn't stop people from supporting him. Henry Ford&nbsp;backed Rogers, as did Babe Ruth and Charles Gibson, <em>Life</em>'s owner, who wrote the magazine's official endorsement. Rogers refused to get on the ballot, even though he probably had a decent chance of winning. According to the admittedly biased folks at the <a href="http://www.willrogers.com/index3.html">Will Rogers Museum</a>, he might have been president if he hadn't died in a plane crash in 1935.</p>
<p>I'm guessing Colbert will push it as far as he can, assuming people keep paying attention.&nbsp;But he knows as well as anyone that the second he appears serious about it, it's just pathetic.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 23,&nbsp;5:28 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#rogers">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>&quot;Circumcision </strong> <a><strong>Damage</strong></a><strong>&quot;:</strong> This morning, all of Chris Dodd's credibility was undermined by a single, random Google Ad on the Huffington Post's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/">home page</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 23,&nbsp;2:47 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#Damage">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Web test:</a></strong> There's been <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/06/barack_obama_social_networking.html">hype</a> <a href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/2574/finding_value_in_candidate_social_networks">aplenty</a> over campaigns using social networks and other online tools. But it's been hard to measure how many people they're reaching, not to mention whether online activity translates to the ground or the polls.</p>
<p><em>Politico</em>'s (and, er, <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>'s) Ryan Grim takes a crack at these questions today with a study examining the <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6485.html">surfing behavior</a> of each candidate's online supporters. Conducted in collaboration Compete.com during the month of September, the study tracks visitors to each candidate's official site and records what other sites they visit, too. For instance, you can see what percentage of Fred08.com visitors also checked out Daily Kos (5 percent), Facebook (19 percent), or the Fox News site (24 percent). (See other comparisons <a href="http://www.politico.com/flex/competeChart/competePopup.html">here</a>.)</p>
<p>The study's most interesting results deal with the social networks—specifically, the candidates' individual pages. Whereas 30 percent of Barack Obama fans (defined as people who visited his official site) also went to Facebook at some point in September, only 1 percent of them checked out Barack's personal Facebook page. In Hillary's case, the number is 0 percent. Mike Huckabee wins with three percent. That's a pretty small proportion, given how influential these social networks have supposedly become. </p>
<p>YouTube, on the other hand, gets more traffic from the candidates' online base: &quot;Fifteen percent of people who went to [Obama's] official campaign site also went to his YouTube page, compared to 9 percent for Clinton.&quot; </p>
<p>You can't call these findings airtight. (The article cautiously avoids overstating them.) For one thing, visitors to a campaign's official site aren't necessarily core supporters. Plus, it's possible that most of Obama's Facebook supporters—mostly young people—have never bothered to go to his official home page. But the study seems useful as a gauge of general trends. Now I'd be curious to see them apply the same method to the campaigns' internal networks, like My.BarackObama.com. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 23,&nbsp;1:24 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#webtest">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Iraq redux?:</strong></a> So Obama's going for it. He's not only trying to make Hillary's vote for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, which labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, sound like a vote for war. He's making it a major focus of his fall campaign.</p>
<p>Today Obama's campaign sent out glossy color mailings in Iowa calling him &quot;the ONLY major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq War from the very start and the Senate amendment that raises the risk of war with Iran.&quot; </p>
<p>This, despite drawing criticism for flogging a nonissue. When Obama <a href="http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Sen.+Barack+Obama%3a+Five+years+after+Iraq+war+vote%2c+we%27re+still+foolishly+rattling+our+sabers&amp;articleId=a41d44e5-0c56-4353-b9f6-5eda09c81236">wrote an op-ed</a> for the <em>Manchester Union Leader</em> accusing Clinton of &quot;saber-rattling,&quot; the Clinton campaign quickly fired back: &quot;It's unfortunate that Sen. Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and embracing the same old attack politics as his support stagnates.&quot; Since then, politicians and pundits have taken sides. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama ally, <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/durbin_disagrees_with_obama_on.html">publicly disagreed</a> with him. The <em>Washington Post</em> editorial page on Sunday called Obama's tactics &quot;irresponsible and -- given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted -- probably naive, as well.&quot;</p>
<p>The main arguments against his charge are: One, the Kyl-Liberman Amendment&nbsp;<em>originally&nbsp;</em>kept military options on the table, but that language was deliberately cut out. Two, the 2002 Iraq war authorization was far more explicit in allowing the president to take the country to war. Three, despite the posturing, Obama and Hillary's positions on Iran don't differ all that much—they both favor diplomacy but neither renounces military action. And lastly, if the vote was so important, why wasn't Obama there? </p>
<p>As for the last question, here's Barack Obama's public schedule for Sept. 26, 2007, the day Hillary Clinton voted for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment: </p>
<p>&quot;Today's Public Events:<br />11:30 a.m. NEW HAMPSHIRE, Obama will host a Harvest for Change event in Peterborough.<br />9:00 p.m. NEW HAMPSHIRE, Obama will participate in the DNC Debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover.&quot;</p>
<p>He missed the vote for one morning event? Who knows, maybe there was some unmissable private fund-raiser we don't know about. But something tells me he didn't spend that day&nbsp;agonizing over&nbsp;an impending war with Iran.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 23,&nbsp;11:26 a.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#redux">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 22, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>The Negotiator:</a></strong>Say what you want about Bill Richardson, but he must tell great stories at cocktail parties. The former United Nations ambassador, congressman, and energy secretary has hyped his diplomatic experience from the start, but today he finally unveiled his best photo-op—and it's with Saddam Hussein. </p>
<p>In his new ad, &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sziYAe-jKs4">Only One</a>,&quot; Richardson dusts off old footage of him and Saddam negotiating the release of two American contract workers who inadvertently crossed the border into Iraq, a move that at the time earned him a <a href="http://billrichardson.cachefly.net/pdf/ads/OnlyOneBackgroundDocuments.pdf">glowing write-up</a> in the <em>Washington Post</em>.</p>
<p>The ad manages to tout Richardson's record without reading from a laundry list of accomplishments like Richardson's semi-funny <a href="http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/multimedia/video?id=0010">job interview spots</a>. The wife of one of the rescued workers makes an indirect dig at Richardson's rivals: &quot;He's the only one that was willing to, to leave his family, his wife behind, travel to a dangerous section of the world, for two men he didn't even know.&quot; Richardson has been touting a similar message with his <a href="http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq">Iraq withdrawal policy</a>—that he's the only one willing to take the political risk of making the case for an immediate withdrawal (if you ignore Kucinich and Gravel). Moreover, if Richardson can successfully get two men out of Iraq while Saddam is still in power, the spot implies, then he can get 130,000 troops out of Iraq with the dictator gone.</p>
<p>The ad will run in New Hampshire and Iowa, where Richardson continues to <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/">linger in fourth</a> place.</p>
<p><p><strong>Update:</strong>&nbsp; Astute reader Kari Chisholm alerted us that this isn't the first time Richardson has told this story.&nbsp; Richardson ran a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRUH1FySX1s">very similar ad</a> during his New Mexico gubernatorial campaign in 2002.</p><p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 22,&nbsp;6:50 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#negotiator">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p></p>
<p><strong> <a>The Great Blog Crisis of 2008:</a></strong> Last week, the campaign blogosphere birthed twins. Or at least it sounded that way. The <em>New Republic</em> introduced <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_stump">The Stump</a>, while <em>Newsweek</em> revealed <a href="http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/">Stumper</a>, both of which will chronicle the ups, downs, lefts, rights, bumps, swerves, and occasional multicar pileups of the 2008 presidential race. </p>
<p>Sure, their names sound similar. But given the saturation level of campaign coverage, it's a miracle they were able to find original names at all. Just look what's been taken already: </p>
<p> <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/">The Caucus</a>, <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/">The Trail</a>, <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/">The Fix</a>, <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/">The Swamp</a>, <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/">Swampland</a>, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_stump">The Stump</a>, <a href="http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/">Stumper</a>, <a href="http://thepage.time.com/">The Page</a>, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html">The Note</a>, <a href="http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/">The Gaggle</a>, <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/">Campaign Spot</a>, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/">Campaign Standard</a>, <a href="http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/">Campaign Desk</a>, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/">The Primary Source</a>, <a href="http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=NEWS97">Primary Monitor</a>, <a href="http://www.observer.com/thepoliticker/">The Politicker</a>, <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/">Political Ticker</a>, <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/">Political Radar</a>, <a href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/index.html">Political Insider</a>, <a href="http://blogs.nbcuni.com/politalk/2007/10/the_evangelical_candidate_in_h.php">Politalker</a>, <a href="http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election">Politics West</a>, <a href="http://www.politico.com/playbook/">Playbook</a>, <a href="http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/">On Call</a>, <a href="http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/election2008/">Hot Off the Trail</a>, Horse Race (<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/horserace/main502163.shtml">here</a> and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/">here</a>), <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal">Campaign Journal</a>, <a href="http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/">Campaign Desk</a>, <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/">Top of the Ticket</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/">Trailhead</a>, Trail Mix (<a href="http://archive.salon.com/politics/trail/2000/07/26/trail_mix/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0907/Eats.html">here</a>), <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/">First Read</a>, <a href="http://www.decision08blog.com/">Decision08Blog</a>, <a href="http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml">Indecision 2008 Blog</a>,&nbsp; <a href="http://2008central.net/">2008 Central</a>, <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.com/">Election Central</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus/">Off the Bus</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2085967/">Ballot Box</a>. And our favorite: <a href="http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Presidential_Politics">Examining Presidential Politics</a>.</p>
<p>The fact is, naming your blog is a painful process, mostly because there aren't many good names left. (Just ask <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>'s <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2171870/">Michael Weiss</a>.) So for anyone out there still planning to join the fracas, we compiled a comprehensive list of leftover blog names. Some are rejects from our own pile, others we heard tossed around elsewhere. Feel free to use any and all. Just don't expect to avoid ridicule:</p>
<p>'08 Ball, '08 Track, El Ocho, The Runner, On the Run, Election Watch, Election Trail, Trail Watch, Trail Stalker, The Trailer, The Decider, The Countdown, The Bus Stop, The Race, The Stage, The Podium, The Lectern, The Platform, The Swinger, The Gaffe, The Chad, The Smear, The Campaigner, On the Trail, Off the Trail, On&nbsp;the Road, Off the Road, On the Bus, Trailblazer, Trailbreaker, Trailbuster, Trail Junkie, Trail Fiend, Trail Addict, Trail Hound, Poliwog, Poliwag (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyduck#Poliwag">also a Pokemon</a>), Party Time, Pary Line, Finish Line, Ballot Stuffer, Race Space, Racebook, The Political Theater, The Washington Read, Blogger of Campaigns, Blog or Die, Stumpy, Stump'd.</p>
<p>Got more? <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">Let us know</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 22,&nbsp;4:59 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#crisis">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>The Fringe, Part 3:</a></strong><em>This is the third entry in &quot;The Fringe,&quot; a periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. You can find previous entries </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#Fringe">here</a><em>&nbsp;and </em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/#fringetwo"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Michael Skok, a 58-year-old retiree from New York, asked me this today: &quot;I would argue with you that Republicans have evolutionists in their party. So why can't the Democrats have a creationist in their own party?&quot; Skok believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, that America will cease to exist within&nbsp;eight years, and that we need to send a man to Mars. That's why he's running for president. </p>
<p>Undeterred by his <a href="http://www.politics1.com/vote-nh.htm">18-vote tally</a> in New Hampshire's 2000 primary, Skok is back in the race for the Democratic nomination. Not that he's on the trail, exactly: He can't afford to head out to New Hampshire just yet, having spent much of his campaign budget on the $1,000 registration fee for the state primary. His family doesn't like that he's running: &quot;They said it's a waste of money. I tell them I'm trying to save the country.&quot; Here's the plan:</p>
<p><strong>Restore the country's Christian values:</strong> Skok wants to stage a modern-day <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial">Scopes Trial</a> via a nationwide debate between the country's best creationists and evolutionists. &quot;We're becoming a nation that's godless with no morality,&quot; he said. He's puts his faith in the creationists, partly because the books on evolution he has read have been &quot;confusing.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Find alternate sources of energy: </strong>To ease America's dependence on the OPEC states, Skok wants to put solar panels in Earth's orbit and then somehow get that energy back down to Earth. Also, expect the Skok administration to put solar collectors along the freeway and invest in wind turbines.</p>
<p><strong>Fix America's trade deficit: </strong>Skok is convinced that in eight years, there will be no such thing as the United States. Instead, the EU is going to annex the U.S. because the dollar will be so weak and so many industries will have been outsourced to China. </p>
<p><strong>Advance America's science and technology sectors: </strong>Sending an astronaut to Mars, he said, would help strengthen America's position in the world. This, coupled with Skok's desire to send solar panels into orbit, made me wonder how his creationist beliefs jibe with his scientific interests. &quot;I'm using science to find out if the Bible is true,&quot; he told me.</p>
<p>Skok said he can't imagine voting for any other Democrat but that Fred Thompson had caught his eye because he wanted to restore Christian values. If Fred's performance continues to underwhelm, maybe <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2176386/nav/fix/#thompsonvalue">Values Voters</a> can find their candidate across the aisle.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 22,&nbsp;4:19 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fringethree">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Straw man:</strong></a> Yes, Mitt Romney technically &quot;<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21391400/">won</a>&quot; the straw poll of social conservatives this weekend. But it's hard to look at his victory as anything but Pyrrhic: He barely beat out Mike Huckabee in the overall tally, which included online voting as far back as August, while Huckabee <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5880_family_research.html">utterly trounced</a> Romney among the conference attendees, 51 percent to 10 percent. </p>
<p>Why the disparity? The Romney campaign's battle tactics partially explain it—they <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/rivals_accuse_r.html">encouraged supporters to vote online</a>. But the candidates' speeches no doubt made a difference, too.</p>
<p>Romney's speech was, well, a Romney speech—eloquent, enthusiastic, utterly antiseptic. When it came time to address his religion, he punted with a one-off joke: &quot;I imagine one or two of you have heard I'm Mormon,&quot; he said. If you're one of the people who says you wouldn't vote for a Mormon, &quot;I imagine that's because you've listened to Harry Reid.&quot; The line went over awkwardly, and he didn't mention his religion again. </p>
<p>Huckabee's speech, meanwhile, was a Huckabee speech, but better. The former Baptist minister made it clear he wasn't just from the Christian community, but <em>of</em> it. He dinged Romney for trying to play Christian: &quot;People need to sing from their hearts, rather than lip sync the lyrics to our songs.&quot; He said he puts religion before politics: &quot;I do not spell G-O-D 'G-O-P.' &quot; The self-effacing charmer gave way to the pulpit preacher, and somehow it didn't sound forced. </p>
<p>It's hard to call Huckabee a threat—and not just because he seems about as menacing as an ice cream cone. He still <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/">places fourth</a> in Iowa polls, and even lower nationally. But he could well start chipping away at Romney's lead. Whereas Rudy Giuliani <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/giuliani_and_the_evangelicals.php">might not even need the evangelical vote</a>—he's polling just fine in the states that matter to him—Romney does. Roughly <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/iowa_caucus_screening">35 percent</a> of Republican Iowa caucus goers are evangelical Christians. If this weekend's straw poll is any indication, Huckabee is gaining ground with them. A few more speeches like Saturday's, some skillful ground organization in Iowa, and his horse could start looking a shade lighter. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,&nbsp;Oct. 22,&nbsp;12:20 a.m. </strong>(<a href="http://www.slate.com#straw">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Poetry slam:</strong></a> Love thy neighbor—except when you can ding him with a great one-liner. That seemed to be the 11<sup>th</sup> commandment of last week's Values Voter Summit, which featured, along with odes to God and country, a few juicy slams (at least by Sunday school standards). Here's a sampling: </p>
<p><em>WSJ</em> editor John Fund on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: &quot;You can wade through their deepest thoughts without getting your ankles wet.&quot;</p>
<p><em>National Review</em> editor Rich Lowry on Hillary Clinton: &quot;We put our 'Run, Hillary, Run!' bumper stickers on the <em>front </em>of our cars.&quot;</p>
<p>Mike Huckabee on Mitt Romney, implicitly: He &quot;has more positions on abortion than Elvis has waist sizes.&quot;</p>
<p>Huckabee on baby boomers and Medicare: &quot;Just wait till old aging hippies find out they can get free drugs from the government.&quot; </p>
<p>The emcee on Al Gore: He couldn't make it, as he's busy investigating the &quot;global threat of the Loch Ness monster.&quot; </p>
<p>Rudy Giuliani on Hillary: &quot;It takes a family, not a village, to raise a child.&quot;</p>
<p>Of course, not everyone was a hater. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett">Bill Bennett</a> snagged the award for most heaping praise, describing our leader in Iraq as &quot;not Leonidas of the 300 Spartans, but Petraeus of the 300 million Americans.&quot; </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,&nbsp;Oct. 22,&nbsp;10:25 a.m. </strong>(<a href="http://www.slate.com#poetry">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Girl talk:</strong></a> If the GOP debate in Michigan earlier this month was the Fred Thompson debate, last night's was the Hillary debate. (Click <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html?ref=politics&amp;pagewanted=all">here</a> for a transcript.) No matter what the topic, talk kept reverting to the Democratic senator from New York. Just take a look at the number of Hillary references, compared with other mentions: </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton: 44<br />Mitt Romney: 17<br />Rudy Giuliani: 15<br />Ronald Reagan: 11<br />terrorist: 3</p>
<p>Attacks on Hillary certainly give her a boost over her Democratic opponents. (Not that she needs it.) They feed her &quot;inevitability&quot; narrative, for one thing, and they also give the impression that a Clinton presidency is, to borrow Thompson's phrase from last night, the GOP's &quot;worst nightmare.&quot; You don't hear them spinning apocalyptic tales about an Obama administration.</p>
<p>But I wonder if these attacks are going to ultimately hurt the Republican candidates. They can go after Hillary all they want in front of a friendly audience. But what happens during a general election debate? Clinton famously <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E0DF143BF93AA2575AC0A9669C8B63">used Rick Lazio's brash style against him</a> in the 2000 Senate race, calling him a bully for raising his voice and pointing his finger during debates. She could always take a similar tack if faced with a tough-talking Giuliani in the general election (against Romney, maybe not so much). Of course, the strategy could come off as cheap, and Republicans would no doubt accuse her of playing the girl card. </p>
<p>In the meantime, though, the Hillary campaign might have to add the GOP candidates to their payroll.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,&nbsp;Oct. 22,&nbsp;9:39 a.m. (</strong> <a href="http://www.slate.com#girltalk"><strong>link</strong></a><strong>) (</strong> <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597"><strong>discuss</strong></a><strong>) (</strong> <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com"><strong>tips</strong></a><strong>)</strong></p>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:47:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/the_fringe_part_5.htmlChristopher BeamChadwick Matlin2007-10-22T14:47:00ZPresidential candidates you've never heard of.News and PoliticsThe Fringe: Presidential candidates you've never heard of.2176386Christopher BeamChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2176386falsefalsefalseThe Fringe: Presidential candidates you've never heard of.The Fringe: Presidential candidates you've never heard of.Cap FendigThe Fringe, Part 2http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/the_fringe_part_2.html
<p><strong> <a>The Fringe, Part 2</a>: </strong>This is the second entry in &quot;The Fringe,&quot; a periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. You can find the first entry on Dr. Jack Shepard <a href="http://www.slate.com#Fringe">here</a>.<em></em></p>
<p> <a href="http://klein4change.in2006.us/page.php">Dr. Mark Klein</a> shares at least one presidential tic with the rest of the mainstream candidates—he has a tagline. &quot;We need a grown-up in the White House,&quot; Klein proudly told me earlier today. He wants that grown-up to be him.</p>
<p>Klein is a retired psychiatrist from Oakland, Calif., who woke up one morning in 2005 and felt like running for president. So that he did. Armed with $20,000 of his own money—Klein doesn't do any fund raising of his own—he started a field office in West Des Moines, Iowa, and says he has a dozen volunteers who believe in his message. &quot;Instead of in my retirement buying a fancy Mercedes, I decided to run for the White House,&quot; he told me.</p>
<p>Klein's main goal is to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oQdn6NvhIU">strengthen the middle class</a>. That means stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, imposing banking regulations, and re-evaluating free-trade policies. &quot;What passes for the free market today is basically socialism for the very rich,&quot; he said. He added that even though he lives an admittedly &quot;prosperous&quot; lifestyle and lives off stock dividends, he considers himself middle class, since he has a net worth less than $10 million. He's less focused on foreign policy (his campaign materials say it would play &quot;second fiddle&quot; to domestic policy), but says he wants to withdraw all troops and supports the <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15236956">Bidenback</a> strategy of dividing Iraq into three countries.</p>
<p>As if running for president wasn't hard enough, Klein is convinced the GOP doesn't like him. He <a href="http://www.israelnewsagency.com/drmarkkleinamesstrawpollrepublicaniowajewishfathersrightscandidates66060907.html">claims</a> the Iowa Republicans ignored his requests to be included in the Ames Straw Poll because they're anti-Semitic (Klein is Jewish). Mary Tiffany of the Iowa GOP told me his discrimination claims were baseless. He just didn't pass muster when the State Central Committee chose whom to put on the ballot in Ames. &quot;Mark Klein isn't even a formidable candidate,&quot; she said, adding that she was surprised I was giving him the time of day. If Klein had more press coverage and bigger events, she said, they might have listed him as a candidate. (<a href="http://blogs.iowapolitics.com/strawpoll/2007/08/detailed-results.html">Eleven candidates were on the ballot</a>, including John Cox and the then-unannounced Fred Thompson.)</p>
<p>All of this creates a presidential Catch-22: Outsider candidates can't raise their profile at major events because they don't have enough of an infrastructure, but they can't get the infrastructure they need because they don't have the medium to spread their message. </p>
<p>Of course, Klein could have gotten around this by running for some office other than president. But those small-time positions didn't interest him. &quot;I don't waste my time,&quot; he said.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 19,&nbsp;6:15 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fringetwo">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a href="http://editor.slate.com//common/htc/"><strong>Face value:</strong></a> Another religious Romney <a href="http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Wilton">endorsement</a>, this one coming from the former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Good timing, too: Romney will be speaking at the <a href="http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?c=WASH_BRIEFING">Values Voters Summit</a> this evening, and it's fair to say he's got some repenting to do. </p>
<p>Two gentlemen from the Log Cabin Republicans were passing out fliers outside the main ballroom including Mitt Romney's now-famous endorsement during his failed 1994 run for U.S. Senate. &quot;If we are to achieve the goals we share,&quot; Romney wrote, &quot;we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.&quot; The group also released a sarcastically fawning <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/log-cabin-republicans-release-anti-romney-ad/">anti-Romney ad</a> a few weeks ago, praising his &quot;pro-choice record&quot; and &quot;Massachusetts values.&quot; </p>
<p>Romney's rebuttal is that he has changed. &quot;I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have,&quot; he said to Sam Brownback at a debate in August. But tonight he'll be facing a largely skeptical audience and will&nbsp;need all the endorsements he can get. </p>
<p>As for the Log Cabin Republicans, the group isn't planning to endorse a candidate in the primaries, they told me. Right now, they're just making sure voters know about Romney's past positions. &quot;The only thing consistent is his ambition,&quot; one of them said. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 19,&nbsp;2:57 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#romneyvalue">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Sleep&nbsp;talking:</a></strong>&nbsp;Fred Thompson doesn't know what he'd do as president, but he will know once God tells him. That's what he told the <a href="http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?c=WASH_BRIEFING">Values Voters Summit</a> in Washington, D.C. today: &quot;Someone asked me what I'd do in my first 100 days as president. I said I don't know what I would do in my first 100 days. But I know what I'd do in the first hour. I'd go into the Oval office, close the door, and pray to know what was right.&quot;</p>
<p>It says a lot about Thompson's candidacy that this line got more applause than all his promises of judicial restraint, vetoes for abortion legislation, and smaller government. No one I talked to after the speech raved about Thompson's policies. They were drawn to his style. A man from Tennessee (whose wife was a cheerleader for Thompson's high-school football team) told me he admired Fred's authenticity, because he sounds like he &quot;means what he says.&quot; He's just a regular guy like you and me. </p>
<p>The problem is, regular guys like you and me would have no idea what we're doing as president of the United States. Onstage, Thompson does little to suggest he'd be any different. Whereas Mitt Romney sometimes seems <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2169892/nav/navoa/#SmileyFace">androidlike</a>, Thompson comes off as all too human. He punctuated his speech with &quot;um,&quot; and his voice never rose out of its cordial, soporific cadence. He could have been sitting on a porch, not standing on a stage. The ballroom seemed to swallow him. The speech didn't really have any laugh lines, either, except a canned quip about not needing to &quot;call his lawyers to know a good judge from a bad one.&quot; Coming on the snappy heels of Tom Tancredo, his speech sounded like a eulogy.</p>
<p>At the end, as Johnny Cash started to play over the speakers, a group of Fred supporters shook signs and chanted, &quot;Go, Fred, go!&quot; It quickly became clear the audience wasn't going to join them, and the chant faded away. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 19,&nbsp;1:43 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#thompsonvalue">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Obama, where art thou?:</a></strong> The big story on liberal blogs today has been Sen. Chris Dodd's <a href="http://action.chrisdodd.com/signUp.jsp?key=1570">decision</a> to put a &quot;hold&quot; on the new surveillance bill, since it would <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101702438.html?hpid=topnews">grant immunity</a> to telecom companies that helped the government spy on people without warrants. It started this morning when a blogger at MyDD <a href="http://mydd.com/story/2007/10/18/91227/782">called on</a> Dodd to hold the bill—a procedural move that denies the party leadership the unanimous consent they need to bring a bill to the floor. In the afternoon, Dodd released a <a href="http://action.chrisdodd.com/signUp.jsp?key=1570">statement</a> announcing his &quot;hold&quot; and promising &quot;no telecom amnesty.&quot;</p>
<p>But it makes you wonder: Why ask Dodd? Why not Obama or Hillary or someone whose opposition would bring more attention to the issue? For one thing, Dodd had already <a href="http://chrisdodd.com/blog/dodd-responds-bush-telecom-immunity">promised</a> to &quot;do what I can to see to it that no telecommunications giant that was complicit in this Administration's assault on the Constitution is given a get-out-of-jail-free card.&quot; </p>
<p>But the calls for Dodd also reflect a growing disillusionment with Obama on the left. (See <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-saunders/obamas-aura-of-unreliabi_b_69005.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/7/12124/09214">here</a> to read some frustrated venting.) Obama's promises to discard the ways of Washington are bumping up against the pragmatism and party loyalty necessary to win an election. He's caught between reinventing politics and having to practice it. He probably <em>would</em> oppose the FISA bill, but he knows it could cost him. </p>
<p>Dodd, on the other hand, has very little to lose. He's barely registering in polls (the ones that he said &quot;<a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/29/338169.aspx">don't mean spit</a>&quot;), and his third-quarter fund-raising <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-fundraising_N.htm">wasn't stellar</a>. Taking a firm stance on wiretapping is both consistent with his support for civil liberties and a good way to distinguish himself from his opponents. </p>
<p>Even if he can't hoist himself out of the second tier, Dodd at least has a chance to influence the debate. Just as Bill Richardson can say to Hillary, <em>I won't leave residual troops in Iraq—why will you?</em>, Dodd can now ask Obama, <em>I stood my ground on wiretapping—why didn't you?</em></p>
<p><strong>Also: </strong>In case you're curious, Daily Kos has a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/18/151928/04">useful guide</a> &nbsp;to how a &quot;hold&quot; works.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 18,&nbsp;6:39 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#dodd">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Fortunate nephew:</a></strong> Jeb Bush Jr., son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of President George W. Bush, will be joining Rudy Giuliani's Florida team, the campaign <a href="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/911">announced</a> today. That's just a week after Elizabeth Cheney <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/a-cheney-and-allen-for-thompson/">joined</a> Fred Thompson's campaign as co-chair. </p>
<p>So, if Bush's nephew and Cheney's daughter—the straight one, of course—are supporting different candidates, does that mean there's a rift in the White House? </p>
<p>So far, Giuliani seems to have a lock on the administration's (tacit) support. He's been much less critical of Bush than, say, Romney has, and based on his comments about national security and Iran—&quot;the military option is not off the table&quot;—he may even outhawk the current brass. And just look at some of his advisers: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz">Norman Podhoretz</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Peter_Rosen">Stephen Rosen</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes">Daniel Pipes</a>. These guys make the Iraq war architects look like Cindy Sheehan. The White House doesn't do endorsements—which in this cycle is probably a good thing—but if it did, Giuliani could probably count on it. </p>
<p>But who knows, if Jeb Bush Jr.'s <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0916052bush1.html">personal</a> <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jebby1.html">history</a> is any indication, he might not be doing much to clean up Rudy's image. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 18,&nbsp;4:47 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#nephew">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Bye-Bye <a>Brownback</a>:</strong> Mr. Brownback, we barely knew ye. The Associated Press is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Brownback.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">reporting</a> that Sam Brownback has decided to end his bid for the Republican nomination because he couldn't raise enough money. His low poll numbers and lack of support among the Christian right were most likely a factor, as well.&nbsp; Brownback's momentum stalled when he finished behind Mike Huckabee in the Ames Straw Poll in August. He never found his footing after that.</p>
<p>In honor of the Kansas senator's achievements, Trailhead created this lasting tribute to his campaign. Sam, may you rest in political peace.&nbsp; We can only hope other, more sincere retrospectives will follow.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong> Oct. 18, 3:45 &nbsp;p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Brownback">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Clinton, Iowa:</a></strong> I know hokey symbolism is the lifeblood of campaigns, but the candidates are having <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/NEWS09/710180428/-1/caucus">way too much fun with this</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The former Massachusetts governor and White House hopeful began by attacking Hillary Clinton's tax plan, health care proposal, poll numbers and her husband's presidency at a speech in -- where else? -- the town of Clinton.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's also where Obama gave a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html">major anti-war speech</a> in September. Best of all, it gives media the chance to drop coy references to &quot;Clinton Republicans.&quot; </p>
<p>Luckily, there are plenty more opportunities for ham-fisted geographical metaphors. Candidates might consider campaigning in any or all of the following cities and towns, depending on their message: </p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romney,_West_Virginia">Romney,&nbsp;W. Va.</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://www.thompsonct.org/">Thompson, Conn.</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?city=McCain&amp;state=NC&amp;country=us">McCain, N.C.</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://www.edwards.af.mil/">Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://fatatlas.com/node/1616633">Huckabee Heights, S.C.</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://ms-linda-morgan.katrina.aidpage.com/ms-linda-morgan/">Hillaryville, La.</a></li>
</ul>
<p>And if anyone really wants to go after Fred in the Hawkeye State, there's always the town of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson,_Iowa">Thompson, Iowa</a>—population 600.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 18,&nbsp;2:08 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#clintoniowa">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Bad dates:</a></strong> All signs suggest that Rudy Giuliani&nbsp;is <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6415.html">paying less attention</a> to Iowa than to later states. For him, the big day isn't Jan. 3, when Iowa's social conservatives will turn out for the caucus. He's focused on Feb. 5, when a boatload of larger states hold their primaries. That, according to <a href="http://www.observer.com/2007/how-rudy-pulls-it">reports</a> and <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/08/rudys_florida_memo.html">campaign documents</a>, is when he'll look to clinch the nomination.</p>
<p>But with Iowa and now possibly New Hampshire pushing their dates earlier and earlier, Feb. 5 is looking rather distant. If Romney dominates in Iowa (recent <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/">polls</a> show him beating Giuliani by a factor of two) and uses that momentum to finish solidly in New Hampshire (where the two candidates are currently neck and neck), there's more time than ever for those victories to sink in. If New Hampshire—and therefore Iowa—somehow gets pushed into December, an early win could be all but calcified by February.</p>
<p>Of course, he's not the only candidate affected by the primary-date arms race. A superearly Iowa caucus could hurt Barack Obama if the legions of Iowa students he plans to mobilize are still on winter break. On the other hand, early primaries give the front-runners—right now Hillary and Giuliani—less time to regain their footing against a last-minute insurgency. If Obama manages to get a boost just before the caucus, Hillary might not have time to recover. Same goes for Romney against Giuliani: If he deals a last-minute blow to Rudy's lead in the national polls before the primaries, a subsequent victory in Iowa could become more significant than just a mere&nbsp;early jab.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 18,&nbsp;11:58 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#baddates">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 17, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>With&nbsp;friends like these ...:</a></strong>&nbsp;The parade of half-assed endorsements continues! </p>
<p>First, Christian fundamentalist and university president Bob Jones announced his support for Mitt Romney, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175960/nav/fix/#religion">despite being &quot;completely opposed&quot; to Romney's religion</a>. Now comes conservative Texas Gov. Richard Perry's <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1736927920071017?feedType=RSS&amp;feedName=politicsNews&amp;rpc=22&amp;sp=true">equally lukewarm endorsement</a> of Rudy Giuliani. Perry opposes abortion rights but said he supports Giuliani anyway because he believes the mayor will appoint conservative judges: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Let me tell you, I can live with that,&quot; Perry said.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Easy there, governor. Don't get too excited now. From the same article: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Perry likened the choice to buying a new pickup truck, saying he would not reject a good model because it had one option he did not like.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can't he at least <em>pretend</em> to like the person he's endorsing? We know social conservatives aren't too enthused about the current batch of GOP candidates, but this is just absurd. It reminds me of the Web site that appeared during the 2004 race, <a href="http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/">www.JohnKerryIsaDouchebagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com</a>. Their motto: &quot;He'll do.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 17,&nbsp;5:38 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#friends">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <strong>The </strong> <a><strong>Fringe</strong></a><strong>:</strong> In honor of <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=118597&amp;ml_collection=&amp;ml_gateway=&amp;ml_gateway_id=&amp;ml_comedian=&amp;ml_runtime=&amp;ml_context=show&amp;ml_origin_url=%2F&amp;ml_playlist=&amp;lnk=&amp;is_large=true">Stephen Colbert's presidential run</a> and the <a href="http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Colorful+characters+are+first+to+file&amp;articleId=41db15e1-c3e2-4af3-b904-c855d192432f">beginning of the filing period</a> for the New Hampshire primaries, Trailhead is introducing its first regular feature: the Fringe. We'll profile the &uuml;ber-long shots who have come out of the woodwork armed with limited cash, delusions of grandeur, and blind faith to seek residency in the White House.</p>
<p>Our inaugural candidate is <a href="http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/index.html">Dr. Jack Shepard</a>, a dentist from Minnesota—no, not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Shephard">that Jack Shephard</a>. He has lived in Rome for the past 25 years but still thinks he's the Republican who can protect America and bring peace to the Middle East. Oh, I almost forgot, he's a convicted felon who is wanted on arson charges back home.</p>
<p> <a>Shepard </a> left the country in 1982, after serving eight months in jail for possessing narcotics—he says he was permitted to have them because of a license obtained for his dentistry practice <a href="http://www.slate.com#correct">*</a>—and after Minnesota authorities claimed he burned down his house and dentistry office. Since moving to Italy, he says he routinely speaks with high-level Syrian, Iranian, and Hamas officials to assist America's foreign-policy efforts. He believes he is still serving in the armed forces at the age of 60 because his <a href="http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/images/tess3.jpg">ID card</a> doesn't have an expiration date. He claims he can't come home because he's still serving his country abroad. When I asked for specifics, he said that was all he was allowed to tell me.</p>
<p>If Shepard's platform has a fulcrum, it's full diplomacy with leaders in the Middle East, especially Iran. When I asked him about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's aggressive anti-Israel comments, he blamed them on a mistranslation. He would section off Palestine within Israel (he offered no specifics) and veto any pro-Israel bill that came across his desk. He also offered this: &quot;The votes that I get will be votes from peace people,&quot; he said, &quot;I'm curious how many people are actually after a person who really has dialogue with the evil of axis, as it's called.&quot; That was not a typo.</p>
<p>If Shepard sounds like he's a peace-loving Democrat, that's because he used to be. He became a &quot;born-again Republican&quot; in 2000 after <a href="http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/Racism.html">a convoluted episode</a> involving racial bias. Nevertheless, he wants the Rev. Jesse Jackson to be his ambassador to the United Nations.</p>
<p>He wouldn't tell me much about his domestic policy despite specific questions on health care, abortion, and gay rights. But he did say he wanted to reform the prison system, using personal examples from his own incarceration as evidence of its shortcomings. </p>
<p>To run for president, all Shepard had to do was send $1,000 check to New Hampshire's secretary of state and sign some papers saying he wanted to run. In South Carolina, you have to pony up <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/candidate-colbert/">$2,500 or 3,000 signatures</a> to get on the primary ballot. Nobody does a background check, and he can't get pulled off the ballot in New Hampshire unless somebody files a complaint. This means Shepard will almost certainly remain a diplomatic vigilante.</p>
<p>Even if he were to garner a delegate, it's doubtful he'd be able to attend the GOP national convention in Minnesota, since that's the state where he's wanted for arson. Ever the optimist, Shepard ended an e-mail he sent me with this: &quot;It would be the greatest and happiness moment of my life to return to St. Paul, Minnesota the city of my birth to get the Republican Nomination for President there.&quot; After all, aren't all politicians just talkative people looking for a little redemption? </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin</strong><strong>,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 17,&nbsp;4:50 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Fringe">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Fourth and goal:</a></strong> Ron Paul surprised everyone—including himself, most likely—when he raised $5 million in the third quarter. But that's just the beginning, says his campaign. They're now shooting to raise another $12 million by January, which would put him&nbsp;in the major leagues among the GOP candidates.</p>
<p>That's a lot of cash, but Paul's fund-raising director is optimistic. He said at a press conference today that only 3 percent of Paul's donors have given the maximum amount, which means that well is far from dry. Also, roughly 35,000 donors gave to Paul in the third quarter—a respectable number, given that Romney had 23,000 new third-quarter donors. Plus, he says, Paul has been more frugal than his opponents. (An indication of the way they'll behave in office, surely.) He's &quot;the only top-tier candidate who carried no debt into the fourth quarter,&quot; according to the campaign. <em>Top-tier </em>being their words, not mine.</p>
<p>The $12 million figure is notable not just for its size, but also for being mentioned at all. It's uncommon for a campaign to state its fund-raising goals at the outset, given that things could get ugly. But Paul is taking the transparency a step further: His Web site has a donation &quot;thermometer,&quot; which lets you see how close they are to achieving the goal. Every time a new person donates, their name flashes on-screen. (There's an opt-out feature in case a member of, say, the Giuliani family <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2171730/">wants to chip in</a>.) Barack Obama has a similar &quot;<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/index.php">Closing the Gap</a>&quot; feature on his site now to motivate donors, intended to help him catch Hillary. But that's only a two-day project. If things slow down for Paul later this quarter, the whole world will know about it. </p>
<p>As for where all this cash will go, Paul will soon start spending on radio and TV ads in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada. More details <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123037.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 17,&nbsp;3:15 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#fourthgoal">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Choir Boy:</a></strong> Barack Obama has <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/obama_launches_embrace_the_cha.html">announced</a> his &quot;Embrace the Change&quot; gospel tour, a three-day concert series around South Carolina at the end of October, featuring <a href="http://www.mightycloudsofjoy.com/">Mighty Clouds of Joy</a> and a handful of other gospel stars. </p>
<p>The concerts are clearly meant to boost Obama's God cred. For one thing, a lot of people <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6314.html">still believe Obama is a Muslim</a>—a notion that was buttressed by a Fox News report last January that he was educated at a radical Muslim madrassa. Plus, South Carolina voters often say they plan to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/us/politics/14carolina.html?_r=1&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss&amp;oref=slogin">use prayer</a> to decide which candidate to vote for. If Obama is lucky, their ears will still be ringing in January. </p>
<p>But more importantly, Obama now gets to one-up Hillary on the musical front. Hillary <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/03/lead_singer_of_goo_goo_dolls_headlines_clinton_fundraiser/">held</a> a fund-raising event last week in Boston with the Goo Goo Dolls. She also plans to have Elvis Costello play at her 60<sup>th</sup> birthday party in New York. She's been using Celine Dion's &quot;You and I&quot; as her campaign theme song—let's hope they stick to the recorded version. </p>
<p>There's a good case for electing the candidate with the best musical taste. It will decide whether we spend the next four years listening to over-the-hill boomer tunes—<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ODVfREMS8s">Fleetwood Mac</a> was just the beginning—or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEdLmos2MpM">these guys</a>, who are old but still more fun to watch than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls">John Rzeznik</a>. (As a general rule, appeals to youth culture are a no-no. The Black Eyed Peas' performance at the 2004 DNC still haunts me.)</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 17,&nbsp;12:40 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#choirboy">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Family doesn't matter:</a></strong> Lynne Cheney <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/16/all-in-the-family-cheney-and-obama-related/">told</a> MSNBC Tuesday that her husband, Dick, and Barack Obama are eighth cousins. &quot;Think about this,&quot; Cheney said. &quot;This is such an amazing American story that one ancestor, a man that came to Maryland, could be responsible down the family line for lives that have taken such different and varied paths as Dick's and Barack Obama's.&quot;</p>
<p>Blogs are calling it &quot;<a href="http://www.simplydumb.com/2007/09/12/obama-and-bush-related/">strange news</a>&quot;—a &quot;<a href="http://www.redstate.com/blogs/micawber/2007/oct/16/dick_cheney_related_to_george_bush_and_barack_obama">bizarre revelation</a>&quot; &quot;<a href="http://poljunk.gloriousnoise.com/2007/10/cheney_and_obama_related.php">[f]rom the WTF file</a>.&quot; &quot;Are you sitting down?&quot; <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/big-happy-family/">asks</a> the <em>New York Times</em>' Caucus blog. Well, I don't know, should I be?</p>
<p>Not really, says Utah <a href="http://www.progenealogists.com/">genealogist</a> Chip Hughes. Eighth cousins is nothing to get excited about. &quot;If you told me that, I'd go, 'Oh, OK.' I wouldn't go, '<em>What</em>?'&quot; he says. &quot;You think about it, there's only about 30 years per generation. If you go back to the Revolutionary War, that's eight generations. With the amount of people living then versus now, it's just not that unusual.&quot;</p>
<p>Hughes said you can't put an exact number on odds of two people being distant cousins. But chances are, everyone's got a famous relative. Descendants of the pilgrims who sailed over on the Mayflower currently number in the hundreds of thousands. Obama is also apparently <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545460,BSX-News-wotreea09.article">related</a> to President Bush. &quot;My ninth great grandfather was Roger Williams,&quot; founder of Rhode Island, Hughes said. &quot;There's horse thieves and heroes in everybody's line.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 16,&nbsp;8:07 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#family">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Losing his religion:</a></strong> Check out Bob Jones' official &quot;<a href="http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/NEWS01/71016060">endorsement</a>&quot; of Mitt Romney:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Asked whether Romney's religion was a stumbling block for him, Jones replied, &quot;What is the alternative, Hillary's lack of religion or an erroneous religion?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism,&quot; he said. &quot;But I'm not voting for a preacher. I'm voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wait, what? I thought the whole point of an endorsement from Bob Jones was that he—or any other fundamentalist Christian university president, for that matter—<em>does</em> pick based on religious beliefs. No one cares what Bob Jones thinks of the health-care plan or tax cuts or plan for Iraq. They want to know who worships the best God! It's like a master chef recommending a restaurant even though he hates the food.</p>
<p>People always discuss Romney's beliefs as a weak spot. Who knew he'd be our nation's last defense against a&nbsp;pagan&nbsp;Giuliani or Clinton administration?</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 16,&nbsp;6:01 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#religion">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Blunt instrument:</a></strong> Rudy Giuliani knows how to tailor an anecdote to his audience. At today's Republican Jewish Coalition forum in Washington, D.C., he was introduced as the man who had Yasser Arafat thrown out of the United Nations. Giuliani later clarified: &quot;I actually threw him out of the U.N. concert at Lincoln Center. [Applause] … It bothered me that he came to that peace concert. But what really bothered me was, he didn't have a ticket. He's a freeloader.&quot; I was half expecting him to say <em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorrer_(Yiddish)"><em>schnorrer</em></a></em>. </p>
<p>On the subjects of the day—national security, nukes, Iran—Rudy was in his element. Maybe it's his ability to say anything, no matter how mundane, with utter conviction. &quot;We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, we will never find out what they will do with nuclear weapons because I guarantee they will never get nuclear weapons.&quot; And just in case he wasn't clear: &quot;The military option is not off the table.&quot;</p>
<p>You can understand why, after Hillary and Mitt Romney's&nbsp;alleged vagaries about how they'd respond to a threat from Iran, Giuliani's bluntness distinguishes him. &quot;You can't negotiate with people who want to kill you and your children,&quot; he said at one point. &quot;What are you gong to negotiate? How many kids they're going to kill?&quot; Same goes for throwing Arafat out of concerts: &quot;I didn't call for a team of lawyers to tell me, 'On the one hand, you can throw him out, but on the other hand you can't. Maybe you can partially throw him out. Or make him sit further up.' &quot; For Rudy, it's never about compromise. &quot;Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe,&quot; he said. As does a total lack of nuance, apparently. </p>
<p>He wasn't just blunt about policy, either. One questioner seemed to say that George Soros was in the audience and asked what Giuliani thought of the liberal billionaire. &quot;I'd suggest uninviting him if he's here in the room.&quot; Giuliani also put a Republican spin on Lloyd Bentsen's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI">famous insult</a>: &quot;Barack Obama says Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Russians. ... I say this most respectfully, but you're not Ronald Reagan.&quot; Something tells me Obama wouldn't dispute that.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 16,&nbsp;2:10 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#blunt">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Hair pieces:</a></strong> Every so often, two major newspapers will publish the exact same evergreen feature at the exact same time, confirming suspicions that the media is one giant, pulsating organism that thinks and moves as a unit. </p>
<p>The latest evidence: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/us/politics/14carolina.html?ex=1350100800&amp;en=fd7d3de6275dbfa9&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss">two</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301301.html?nav=rss_print/asection">pieces</a> in the Sunday editions of the <em>New York Times</em> and <em>Washington Post</em> about South Carolina beauty salons and the African-American women who frequent them. As Barron YoungSmith <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175897/">pointed out</a> yesterday in &quot;Today's Papers,&quot; &quot;both pieces follow a twentysomething Obama staffer and both meditate on the identity politics that rend black women choosing between a black man and a white woman.&quot; The salon makes a useful framing device, since both Hillary and Obama have dispatched staffers to salons to court black women. (A nasty tactic, if you ask me. Haircuts are already stressful enough.)</p>
<p>The most interesting quotes in both pieces come from women concerned about Barack Obama. &quot;I think basically white people won't vote for him,&quot; one salon owner tells the <em>Post</em>. Others fear for his life. &quot;I don't feel the country is ready for an African American,&quot; says a woman interviewed in the <em>Times</em>. &quot;He would be killed.&quot;</p>
<p>So, have the <em>Times</em> and the <em>Post</em> been peeking over each other's shoulders? Not at all, say the two writers. &quot;I was totally surprised,&quot; said Katherine Seelye, who wrote the <em>Times</em> piece. &quot;I had no idea they were doing it.&quot; Seelye had wanted to write something about black women voters for a while, and only learned about the other piece on Saturday, when it appeared online. &quot;I think it's kind of serendipitous,&quot; said Krissah Williams, the <em>Post</em>'s reporter.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 15,&nbsp;5:03 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#hair">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>At Your Service:</a></strong>The Service Employee International Union's Iowa state council is endorsing John Edwards today. But to hear the campaign talk about it, you'd think he'd won the union's full endorsement. (He didn't; they decided last week against a nationwide endorsement.)</p>
<p>A spokesman called it &quot;great, great news&quot; for Edwards and a &quot;huge defeat for the Clinton campaign&quot; in a conference call with reporters. He even said it proves Edwards' electability—a point the Edwards camp has been pushing for <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/06/edwards_and_the_electability_q_1.html">some</a> <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/is_edwards_the_most_electable.html">time</a> but that still falls just short of persuasive.</p>
<p>The endorsement is a victory, no doubt. But it's unclear whether it will have the huge effect Edwards seems to expect. In 2004, Howard Dean slipped in Iowa despite getting the much-touted AFSCME endorsement, not to mention the SEIU's. (A spokesman said Edwards' ground organization is much better than Dean's was.) And the campaign's point about electability is ironic, considering that many SEIU members lean toward Hillary and Obama because they perceived Edwards to be <em>less</em> electable. Hence Edwards' failure to get the whole union's endorsement last week. They were likely wary of a replay of 2004, when Dean's campaign imploded soon after getting the SEIU stamp of approval.</p>
<p>An Edwards campaign spokesman had a different take on why Edwards didn't get the full endorsement: Obama and Clinton represent states with strong SEIU membership—more than 250,000 in New York and&nbsp;100,000&nbsp;in Illinois. Therefore, he argued, it was hard for Edwards to command the 60 percent supermajority he needed to win the union's nationwide backing.</p>
<p>The Iowa SEIU has only 2,000 members, but 2,000 dedicated people (and their families) can make a big difference in the caucuses. Plus, SEIU rules allow volunteers from other states who endorse Edwards to work on the Iowa campaign. This influx could give Edwards a much-needed tool against the Obama and Clinton juggernauts in Iowa, especially if he wins California, which has more SEIU members than any other state.</p>
<p>Update, Oct. 16, 2007:&nbsp;Edwards also managed to rope in endorsements from nine other states' SEIU groups&nbsp;Monday, including California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Ohio, and Washington. Their memberships total over a million—more than half the SEIU's total membership of 1.9 million. If significant numbers of volunteers pitch in in Iowa, this could make a big difference. A student organizer from the University of Iowa writes in: &quot;I heard a couple people call this the&nbsp;most important Edwards event of the entire cycle, and I'm not sure that's overshooting too far. The amount of paid professional organizing staff in just this area has basically doubled. ... The local Coralville office (that's the SEIU 199 home base) has completely automated computer call-filtering, whereas the local and regional presidential offices are still doing voter contact calls with spreadsheet printouts and a pen. ... Edwards staff and volunteers now have access to tons of resources that they wouldn't have had otherwise.&quot; Maybe spending limits won't hurt him as much as we thought.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 15,&nbsp;3:03 p.m. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#SEIU">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Friday, Oct. 12, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>No Contest:</a></strong> In a move that's likely to sink the Dodd campaign, Major League Baseball <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/So_much_for_the_Sox.html">nixed</a> the contest to win tickets to a Red Sox ALCS game with Sen. Chris Dodd. Which is a shame, seeing as it was easily the best contest any of the campaigns has offered. So far we've seen:</p>
<p>Win a <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/four-supporters.html">dinner</a> for four with Barack Obama. <br />Win a <a href="https://johnedwards.com/build/enter">trip</a> to hurricane-ravaged New Orleans with John Edwards. <br />Win a <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/25/378940.aspx">date</a> with Bill Clinton and a bowl of chips.</p>
<p>It's not too late for the other campaigns to climb on board. What are some contests we're likely to see?</p>
<p>Win a wedding with Rudy Giuliani. <br />Win a nap with Fred Thompson. <br />Win a meal with John McCain--your treat.<br />Win a Romney brother. (You can keep him.)<br />Win a Guitar Hero duet in Bill Richardson's basement.<br />Win a&nbsp;Rio Grande &quot;hunting trip&quot;&nbsp;with Tom Tancredo.<br />Win a s&eacute;ance with Dennis Kucinich.<br />Win a Ron Paul bobblehead.<br />Win a Greyhound bus ride with Mike Gravel. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;6:15 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#contest">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Coulter </a> Endorses! </strong><strong>&nbsp;</strong>Doesn't Ann Coulter just say the darndest things? In her mindless, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME">anti-Semitic rant</a><strong></strong>to CNBC's Donny Deutsch this week, Coulter may have said something even crazier than the now infamous &quot;[Christians] just want Jews to be perfected&quot; remark. Ann Coulter endorsed <a href="http://www.gohunter08.com/">Duncan Hunter</a> for president.</p>
<p> When asked what America would look like if all of her dreams came true, she said, &quot;The Democratic party would look like Joe Lieberman. The Republican party would look like Duncan Hunter.&quot; Considering Hunter's nonexistent presence in the polls, it doesn't seem like she's tapped into the cultural zeitgeist on that one. (Coulter also said she thought heaven looks like &quot;New York City during the Republican National Convention.&quot;)</p>
<p>I called up Hunter's spokesperson, Roy Tyler, for a reaction, and he said little to distance the campaign from Coulter. &quot;Ann has always been a fan of his,&quot; he told me. &quot;And we certainly can't fault her for that.&quot; He made no mention of the potential ridicule a Coulter endorsement would bring, even though the love fest came in the same five-minute span as an attack on Jews.</p>
<p>But when I asked if they were planning on asking Coulter to make her endorsement official, he said that wasn't in the cards. This doesn't make much sense—Hunter's campaign is squandering a chance to court ultra-right wingers and grab badly needed headlines. Coulter is clearly not a bandwagon supporter (if there's even a bandwagon to jump onto) as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzRZbWN31q0">she's professed her support before</a>. But supposedly Hunter has never even spoken to Coulter on the phone (but he <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570266/">has defended her</a> on MSNBC). Some advice for Duncan: She's practically begging; just give her a call. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;4:37 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#coulter">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Frowny Face</a>: </strong>The cover of today's <em>Wall Street Journal</em> has perhaps the saddest-looking stipple portrait ever. It shows George W. Bush, eyes downcast, lips pursed, frowning slightly—the image of a president who has seen better days.</p>
<p>As it turns out, the <em>Journal</em>'s hedcuts tell a fascinating story about Bush's fortunes over the past couple of years. (<a href="http://media.djreprints.com/gams/Locate/media/LocateHeadCuts.jsp">This site</a> lets you look up old drawings and their publication dates.) In April 2006, he was still sunny and confident. In January 2007, as the surge began, his face showed doubt and concern. Now the man is downright gloomy. </p>
<p>So, is this story arc intentional? An e-mail sent to <em>WSJ</em>'s press office this afternoon hasn't been returned. But <a href="http://www.sprouls.com/">Kevin Sprouls</a>, the artist who pioneered the stipple portrait style for the <em>Journal</em> 20 years ago, said he doubts it. Back when he worked on the art desk, &quot;we'd try not to editorialize,&quot; he said. &quot;We'd go with the image that was the best likeness.&quot; </p>
<p>Today's drawing accompanies an interview with Bush about free trade and executive pay. Maybe they picked the glum face because voter support for free-trade initiatives is down? &quot;There's no way to find out,&quot; Sprouls said. &quot;I'm sure even if they were editorializing, they would deny it.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;3:40 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#frownyface">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Gee-had</a>:</strong> Romney has a <a href="http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=426599">new ad</a> in his series of backyard heart-to-hearts, this time telling us about jihadism—&quot;This century's nightmare.&quot; He sound serious, but I still feel like I'm learning about the birds, the bees, and the coming of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi">12<sup>th</sup> Imam</a>.</p>
<p>As far as strategy, Romney is doing his best to unseat Giuliani as the national security candidate. Talking about the terrorists' plans to &quot;unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate&quot; might help. (Notice that he doesn't mention a &quot;global war on terror&quot;—a good way to distance himself from Bush.) But no matter how many soldiers Romney pledges to add to the military, no matter how hawkish he waxes on Iran, he still doesn't have a good rebuttal if Giuliani decides to ask him, &quot;Where were you on Sept. 11?&quot;</p>
<p>Here's the spot:</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;11:55 a.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#geehad">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><em><strong> <a>Correction</a>, Oct. 18, 2007</strong>: An earlier version of this&nbsp;post misstated&nbsp;that Dr. Shepard was convicted for selling narcotics.&nbsp;A judge ruled that he had violated&nbsp;his parole and convicted&nbsp;him of illegally possessing narcotics. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#return">Return</a> to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:03:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/the_fringe_part_2.htmlChristopher BeamChadwick Matlin2007-10-15T19:03:00ZPresidential candidates you've never heard of.News and PoliticsThe Fringe: presidential candidates you've never heard of.2175960Christopher BeamChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2175960falsefalsefalseThe Fringe: presidential candidates you've never heard of.The Fringe: presidential candidates you've never heard of.Dr. Mark KleinWin a Wedding With Rudy Giulianihttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/win_a_wedding_with_rudy_giuliani.html
<p><strong> <a>No Contest:</a></strong> In a move that's likely to sink the Dodd campaign, Major League Baseball <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/So_much_for_the_Sox.html">nixed</a> the contest to win tickets to a Red Sox ALCS game with Sen. Chris Dodd. Which is a shame, seeing as it was easily the best contest any of the campaigns has offered. So far we've seen:</p>
<p>Win a <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/four-supporters.html">dinner</a> for four with Barack Obama. <br />Win a <a href="https://johnedwards.com/build/enter">trip</a> to hurricane-ravaged New Orleans with John Edwards. <br />Win a <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/25/378940.aspx">date</a> with Bill Clinton and a bowl of chips.</p>
<p>It's not too late for the other campaigns to climb on board. What are some contests we're likely to see?</p>
<p>Win a wedding with Rudy Giuliani. <br />Win a nap with Fred Thompson. <br />Win a meal with John McCain--your treat.<br />Win a Romney brother. (You can keep him.)<br />Win a Guitar Hero duet in Bill Richardson's basement.<br />Win a&nbsp;Rio Grande &quot;hunting trip&quot;&nbsp;with Tom Tancredo.<br />Win a s&eacute;ance with Dennis Kucinich.<br />Win a Ron Paul bobblehead.<br />Win a Greyhound bus ride with Mike Gravel. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;6:15 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#contest">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Coulter </a> Endorses!</strong>:<strong></strong>Doesn't Ann Coulter just say the darndest things? In her mindless, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME">anti-Semitic rant</a><strong></strong>to CNBC's Donny Deutsch this week, Coulter may have said something even crazier than the now infamous &quot;[Christians] just want Jews to be perfected&quot; remark. Ann Coulter endorsed <a href="http://www.gohunter08.com/">Duncan Hunter</a> for president.</p>
<p> When asked what America would look like if all of her dreams came true, she said, &quot;The Democratic party would look like Joe Lieberman. The Republican party would look like Duncan Hunter.&quot; Considering Hunter's nonexistent presence in the polls, it doesn't seem like she's tapped into the cultural zeitgeist on that one. (Coulter also said she thought heaven looks like &quot;New York City during the Republican National Convention.&quot;)</p>
<p>I called up Hunter's spokesperson, Roy Tyler, for a reaction, and he said little to distance the campaign from Coulter. &quot;Ann has always been a fan of his,&quot; he told me. &quot;And we certainly can't fault her for that.&quot; He made no mention of the potential ridicule a Coulter endorsement would bring, even though the love fest came in the same five-minute span as an attack on Jews.</p>
<p>But when I asked if they were planning on asking Coulter to make her endorsement official, he said that wasn't in the cards. This doesn't make much sense—Hunter's campaign is squandering a chance to court ultra-right wingers and grab badly needed headlines. Coulter is clearly not a bandwagon supporter (if there's even a bandwagon to jump onto) as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzRZbWN31q0">she's professed her support before</a>. But supposedly Hunter has never even spoken to Coulter on the phone (but he <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570266/">has defended her</a> on MSNBC). Some advice for Duncan: She's practically begging; just give her a call. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;4:37 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#coulter">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Frowny Face</a>: </strong>The cover of today's <em>Wall Street Journal</em> has perhaps the saddest-looking stipple portrait ever. It shows George W. Bush, eyes downcast, lips pursed, frowning slightly—the image of a president who has seen better days.</p>
<p>As it turns out, the <em>Journal</em>'s hedcuts tell a fascinating story about Bush's fortunes over the past couple of years. (<a href="http://media.djreprints.com/gams/Locate/media/LocateHeadCuts.jsp">This site</a> lets you look up old drawings and their publication dates.) In April 2006, he was still sunny and confident. In January 2007, as the surge began, his face showed doubt and concern. Now the man is downright gloomy. </p>
<p>So, is this story arc intentional? An e-mail sent to <em>WSJ</em>'s press office this afternoon hasn't been returned. But <a href="http://www.sprouls.com/">Kevin Sprouls</a>, the artist who pioneered the stipple portrait style for the <em>Journal</em> 20 years ago, said he doubts it. Back when he worked on the art desk, &quot;we'd try not to editorialize,&quot; he said. &quot;We'd go with the image that was the best likeness.&quot; </p>
<p>Today's drawing accompanies an interview with Bush about free trade and executive pay. Maybe they picked the glum face because voter support for free-trade initiatives is down? &quot;There's no way to find out,&quot; Sprouls said. &quot;I'm sure even if they were editorializing, they would deny it.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;3:40 p.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#frownyface">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Gee-had</a>:</strong> Romney has a <a href="http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=426599">new ad</a> in his series of backyard heart-to-hearts, this time telling us about jihadism—&quot;This century's nightmare.&quot; He sound serious, but I still feel like I'm learning about the birds, the bees, and the coming of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi">12<sup>th</sup> Imam</a>.</p>
<p>As far as strategy, Romney is doing his best to unseat Giuliani as the national security candidate. Talking about the terrorists' plans to &quot;unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate&quot; might help. (Notice that he doesn't mention a &quot;global war on terror&quot;—a good way to distance himself from Bush.) But no matter how many soldiers Romney pledges to add to the military, no matter how hawkish he waxes on Iran, he still doesn't have a good rebuttal if Giuliani decides to ask him, &quot;Where were you on Sept. 11?&quot;</p>
<p>Here's the spot:</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 12,&nbsp;11:55 a.m. ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#geehad">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 11, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>'08 Kids Mix 'n' Match Quiz:</a></strong> The children of political candidates are a mysterious bunch. And with the biggest field of presidential candidates in decades, it's getting hard to keep them all straight. Some, like the five Romney brothers, are throwing themselves into the campaign, while others, like both Giulianis, are taking a back seat.</p>
<p>How well you know the candidates' brood? Take this quiz and find out (Scroll down for the answers): </p>
<p>1. Jackie Kucinich<br />2. Chelsea Clinton<br />3. Meghan McCain<br />4. Sasha Obama<br />5. Matt Romney<br />6. Hunter Biden<br />7. Andrew Giuliani<br />8. Sarah Huckabee<br />9. Malia Obama<br />10. Tagg Romney<br />11. Caroline Giuliani<br />12. Cate Edwards<br />13. Ben Romney<br />14. Beau Biden</p>
<p>Answers: 1 – E; 2 – H; 3 – J; 4 – D; 5 – L; 6 – K; 7 – G; 8 – B; 9 – F; 10 – C; 11 – O; 12 – A; 13 – N; 14 – I </p>
<p>1-2 correct: You are legally blind. <br />3-6 correct: You don't own a television<br />7-8 correct: You are a healthy news consumer.&nbsp;<br />9-10 correct: You are an unhealthy news devourer.<br />11-12 correct: Your parent is a 2008 presidential candidate.<br />13-14 correct: You cheated.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 11,&nbsp;4:58 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#quiz">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 10, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>One man party:</a></strong> After Ron Paul came up big in the third quarter, raising an unexpected $5 million, there's been a <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/dobson_versus_rudy.php#comment-657096">low</a> <a href="http://www.sicsemper.com/node/113">hum</a> on the blogs about a potential independent Paul candidacy. Paul added grist to the rumor mill at Tuesday's debate when he said he wouldn't necessarily support the Republican nominee. Is there a chance he'll go indie?</p>
<p>&quot;Ron has 99.9999 percent ruled it out,&quot; said a spokesman, Jesse Benton. Paul has run as an independent before, but it takes too much time and money just to get on the state ballots, Benton said.</p>
<p>The problem is, about 71 percent&nbsp;of Republicans have already <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/NEWS/71005053/-1/iowapoll07">ruled <em>him</em> out</a>—that's more than any other GOP candidate—according to last week's <em>Des Moines Register</em> poll. No wonder Paul has started reminding supporters on his Web site to register as Republicans so they can vote in the primaries. He knows he's not exactly catering to the party's base.</p>
<p>So, Paul is sticking with the GOP. Or, as Benton put it in a telling Freudian slip, &quot;We're in it until the American people vote no,&quot; he said. &quot;I mean, yes or no.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 10,&nbsp;6:13 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#onemanparty">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Oh … snap:</a></strong> Fred Thompson had the best comebacks at yesterday's GOP debate. Responding to Mitt Romney's quip about how the&nbsp;primary was a lot like an episode of <em>Law &amp; Order</em>—&quot;It's got a huge cast, the series goes on forever and Fred Thompson shows up at the end&quot;—Thompson slipped in a tweak of his own: &quot;And to think I thought I was going to be the best actor on the stage.&quot; When Chris Matthews suggested that Thompson should have kept an answer to one word, Thompson shot back, &quot;That's your opinion, Christopher.&quot;</p>
<p>Apparently, Rudy Giuliani doesn't have the same sense of timing. When Mitt Romney said he'd have to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/09/romney-on-whether-he-can-_n_67800.html">talk to his lawyers</a> about attacking Iran without congressional approval, he opened himself up to ridicule. But it wasn't until this afternoon that Rudy's communications office sent out a press release with this off-the-cuff quip: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Hopefully, Mitt Romney isn't going to check with the same group of lawyers who told him the Bill Clinton line item veto was constitutional.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Somehow, it doesn't have the same bite after a 21-hour delay.&nbsp;Must have been one hell of a brainstorming session.&nbsp;Look for Romney's blistering riposte some time next week.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 10,&nbsp;4:14 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#ohsnap">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Strike Out</a></strong>: Maybe Bill Richardson is a political masochist. Instead of letting his campaign gaffes fade away, he has decided to remind voters that he has both lied and flip-flopped in the past.</p>
<p> Richardson's campaign released <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/what-a-card/">baseball cards</a> at the Iowa State Fair in August that depicted Richardson as a &quot;2008 All Star,&quot; complete with an image of Richardson bearing down on the mound. The card is an innovative political gesture, with clever stats like, &quot;Saves: Richardson rescued US servicemen and hostages from Iraq, North Korea &amp; Sudan.&quot; It's also borderline funny, like Richardson's <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=tjOuL5qwNIc">campaign commercials</a>.</p>
<p>But considering his history with baseball, it's probably not wise to pretend Richardson is an all-star. In 2005, Richardson's hometown paper revealed that he inflated his baseball r&eacute;sum&eacute; (<a href="http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/castro.asp">a la Fidel Castro</a>).&nbsp;Richardson, who routinely touted his supposed brush with the major leagues, admitted that he wasn't actually drafted. A swing and a miss—strike one.</p>
<p>Then, while on <em>Meet the Press</em> earlier this year, he <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/6/">heretically professed</a> to be both a Yankees fan and a Red Sox fan. Strike two. With two strikes against him, why would Richardson risk reminding voters of his previous mistakes?</p>
<p>Richardson is hardly alone in his baseball politicking. Hillary Clinton has sworn allegiance to both the Cubs and Yankees, saying in a recent debate that if they faced off in a World Series, she'd have to &quot;alternate&quot; sides. And today Chris Dodd <a href="https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1318/t/528/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1765">announced a fund-raising contest</a> whose prize is watching Game 6 of the ALCS at Fenway Park with Dodd, a lifelong Red Sox fan. If the Yankees were still in it, maybe Richardson would have thrown his name in the hat.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 10,&nbsp;3:30 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#strikeout">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Nobody's perfect:</a></strong> &quot;Rudy Giuliani is the perfect president for the next four years.&quot;—Steve Forbes</p>
<p> That phrase, uttered in a <a href="http://blip.tv/file/418164">promo video</a> Forbes filmed after yesterday's debate, lodged awkwardly in my ear. The reason is that Giuliani has&nbsp;emphasized recently&nbsp;that's he's <em>not</em> perfect. &quot;I'm not a perfect candidate,&quot; he <a href="http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/UPDATE/709210443/1020.">told</a> an audience in Michigan last month. &quot;I'm not a perfect person—you may have heard. But we need a candidate who can win in all 50 states.&quot; He's used this argument to woo social conservatives—or rather, to alienate them less—and figures that bluntness is better than tiptoeing around the issue.</p>
<p>This image of Giuliani as flawed&nbsp;but competent isn't new. Back in 1993, Ed Koch <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DD153CF936A25753C1A965958260">backed</a> Giuliani for mayor, saying, &quot;He is not a perfect vessel, but I have concluded he is able and intelligent and has energy.&quot;&nbsp;And that was an endorsement.</p>
<p>But recently, Giuliani has managed to turn his imperfection to his advantage. Admitting fault makes him sound honest and human, which puts him in contrast to the opinion-shifting, occasionally cyborgian Mitt Romney. In a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175053/fr/rss/#Rudy">radio ad</a> launched last week, he said people are &quot;not going to find perfection, but they're gonna find somebody who's dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results, results people thought were impossible.&quot; Whatever he's lacking in the perfection area, the logic implies, goes toward other, more important areas like national security. Who wants to spend time with his family when he can spend time hunting down terrorists?</p>
<p>Barack Obama has made similar statements: &quot;I will not be a perfect president. But I can promise you this: I will always tell you what I think and where I stand.&quot; Again, it sets up a contrast with Hillary, who, he implies, won't tell you what she thinks or where she stands.</p>
<p>So, does that mean&nbsp;being &quot;perfect,&quot; when used a euphemism for emotional distance and waffling, can hurt a candidate?&nbsp;Is perfection the new imperfection? If so, Giuliani should do just fine.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 10,&nbsp;1:47 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#nobody">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Laptop prop:</a></strong>&nbsp;Fred Thompson has been getting all-round <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/the_debate_thompson_passes_a_t_1.php">positive</a> <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/live-blogging-d.html">reviews</a> for his debate performance. But no one has been quite as positive about it as <a href="http://fredfile.fred08.com/2007/liveblogging-the-michigan-republican-debate/">Fred Thompson's own blogger</a>. Writing at <a href="http://fredfile.fred08.com/2007/liveblogging-the-michigan-republican-debate/">Fred File</a>, the campaign's official blog, Jon Henke gave a play-by-play of the entire debate, unabashedly filtered through a pair of Fred-colored glasses.</p>
<p>The product is a little disarming: one part shameless cheerleading, one part knowing irony. Most of the time, he just paraphrases what Thompson says: &quot;The AMT ought to be phased out, and we should look at the budget as a whole, as well.&quot; Other times, he drops nuggets of opposition research (Giuliani opposed tax cuts; Romney supported hikes). He even mocks Mitt Romney's suggestion that he'd &quot;let the lawyers sort out&quot; how to respond to a threat from Iran: &quot;Does the Iranian regime respond to subpoena's?&quot; </p>
<p>But what makes the blog notable isn't just instant spin—campaigns send out middebate press releases all the time. It's the idea that a campaign can use the sardonic, combative tone of blogs to its advantage. Team Thompson isn't just appealing to bloggers and <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016254.php">attending their conventions</a>. It's imitating them. Henke explained it&nbsp;like this: &quot;Perhaps it's unusual for a Presidential campaign to liveblog a debate, but it's not an unusual thing to do on a blog. When in the blogosphere, do as bloggers do. We're more new media than old campaign.&quot;</p>
<p>I guess this shouldn't be too surprising. Campaigns are&nbsp;boosting&nbsp;their online presence, and it's not like live-blogging is particularly cutting edge. But it also seems risky. What if Fred had seriously botched a question? (He didn't.) Then it would be the blogger's job to frantically spin it, possibly making the situation worse. There's also the risk of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing">astroturfing</a>. The last thing you want is to look like you're trying to hard to be edgy. This particular blog is upfront about its bias: &quot;It should come as no surprise that we here at the Fred File think Fred Thompson won this debate.&quot; But more importantly, it manages to avoid the self-serious intonations of campaign literature. That can be good and bad. On the one hand, it reads like standard conservative snark. On the other, it's a lot more entertaining than a press release.</p>
<p>Hopefully, we'll see a lot more of this as the campaign progresses. Props to Thompson for being the first. (Or at least the first we've noticed.)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 9, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 9,&nbsp;8:50 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#laptopprop">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>The Dodd-Gravel showdown</a>: </strong>And then there were three. The Democrats' beauty contest in Michigan has lost a bit of its luster after five candidates pulled out of the festivities. Only Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel remain after the rest of the contenders <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/in_michigan_dems_stuff_dems.php">bowed out</a>. This follows an already tense standoff between the Michigan legislature and the Democratic National Committee after Michigan decided to slide its primary up to Jan. 15. That prompted the leading Democratic candidates to pledge not to campaign in the state, a pledge that is not violated by keeping one's name on the ballot. </p>
<p>All of this leaves Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel as the only two candidates left to fight over Clinton's exhaust in the motor state. (Assuming Clinton follows through on her <a href="http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php">monumental lead</a> in the polls.) Even if nobody shows up, you can be sure that the second-place finisher is going to hype his victory as a turning point in the campaign, one that can slingshot him to victory elsewhere. </p>
<p>Now that five candidates' worth of votes are up for grabs again, each candidate's potential voting base just expanded drastically. Will Chris Dodd take in the Richardson supporters who want a withdrawal from Iraq? Will Dodd's coif convince John Edwards' hair-brained supporters that he's their best bet? Will Mike Gravel usurp Kucinich's fringe-left platform? </p>
<p>Before we get ahead of ourselves, we should remember that none of this will probably matter. The DNC is likely to repeat <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/07/State/Florida_faces_a_prima.shtml">its Florida ruling</a> and tell Michigan its delegates won't count. Regardless, either Gravel or Dodd is destined to revel in second place and all of its frivolous glory.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 9,&nbsp;5:57 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#showdown">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Yuck yuck</a>:</strong> It's always refreshing to see a candidate crack an unscripted joke, especially when it's darker than the usual fare. The problem is, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S5RGCG0&amp;show_article=1">this is how it gets reported</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Huckabee: Rivals Might Consider Suicide<br /><br /></strong>LITTLE ROCK (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee joked Tuesday that other candidates might be considering suicide because their level of support doesn't match their fundraising. </p>
<p>The former Arkansas governor, exaggerating, said other GOP presidential hopefuls were raising $100 for every nickel he had raised. &quot;If I were some of these guys, I'd have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with razor blades,&quot; Huckabee said on MSNBC-TV.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ha … ha? Somehow the irony doesn't quite translate to the page. Instead, what was probably a goofy moment comes off as mean-spirited, tone-deaf, and a little creepy.</p>
<p>It's the rare politician who can pull off dark humor. Bob Dole was known for his bone-dry quips. (He once said at a campaign event: &quot;We're trying to get good pictures. Don't worry very much about what I say.&quot;) But it makes you wonder if Huckabee's trademark &quot;folksy&quot; style—long hailed as a stength—might lead him into gaffe territory.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 9,&nbsp;2:57 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#yuckyuck">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>I heart Ronald:</a></strong> A rule of thumb for GOP debates: When in doubt, the answer is &quot;Ronald Reagan.&quot; How would you make Social Security viable for the next generation? Um, Ronald Reagan, obviously. What's your plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Reagan, for sure. What's your favorite Bible passage? Reagan 3:16. </p>
<p>Expect to hear plenty of Gipper shout-outs at today's debate in Dearborn, Mich. But candidates will have a tough time following up on Sen. John McCain's remarks today to the Detroit Economic Club. He started off quoting a speech Reagan gave to students in Moscow in 1988. Standard enough. But then this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Congress just sent to the president a Water Resources and Development Act with 900 earmark projects. If I got that bill, <strong>I'd pull out this pen, a pen given to me by a great president, Ronald Reagan, and I'd veto that bill</strong> in a heartbeat. … <strong>I have the veto pen of Ronald Reagan, and, I promise you, I'll use it</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Damn. That's, like, the political equivalent of Michelangelo's chisel. Shouldn't that pen be in a museum somewhere? Watch Fred Thompson promise to veto such a bill while wearing Ronald Reagan's smoking jacket, eating Ronald Reagan's decades-old jelly beans, and getting a massage from Ronald Reagan's wife. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 9,&nbsp;11:53 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#iheartronald">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 8, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>What's the matter with Florida?</a></strong> The Florida Democratic-primary showdown appears to have reached a stalemate. </p>
<p>On Friday, a judge <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/elections/sfl-1005democrats,0,3656457.story">threw out</a> one of two lawsuits against the Democratic National Committee. The suit, filed by a Democratic activist, accused the organization of violating voters' constitutional rights by stripping Florida of its delegates in response to the state's decision to move its primary up to Jan. 29. <a>The </a> other suit, filed by Sen. Bill Nelson <a href="http://www.slate.com#correct">*</a> and Rep. Alcee Hastings, is still pending but seems unlikely to succeed given both precedent—courts have previously called party primaries internal affairs—and Friday's ruling. So if that suit fails, what happens next?</p>
<p>Chances are Florida Dems&nbsp;will go ahead with the early primary—sorry, &quot;beauty contest&quot;—and try to force the national party's hand. They say they'll send delegates to the national convention no matter what, which could get ugly if the DNC ends up turning them away. (The <a href="http://www.jofreeman.com/photos/mfdp64.html">parallels to the 1964 Mississippi convention</a>, where black delegates weren't allowed in, wouldn't look so good.)</p>
<p>But that's assuming Democrats go to the polls in the first place. Most of them won't have much incentive to turn out if their votes don't count. Sure, a handful of GOP-supported ballot measures dealing with property taxes and local development might get hardcore Democrats to vote. But they're&nbsp;unlikely to motivate the masses like a candidate would. The Florida Dems have ruled out <a href="http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-selectionanalysis/">alternative processes</a> like a mail-in primary or district-level caucuses, according to a spokesman. They could conceivably change their mind about those options, but they say they're not even considering it.</p>
<p>So, the Florida Dems really have only one recourse: Keep making a big stink about it and hope the candidates start to get uncomfortable. If a Hillary or an Obama worries that all this fuss could hurt them in the general elections—Florida's already a battleground state, after all—the DNC might listen. Candidates have signed pledges not to campaign in Florida, but that's mostly to avoid pissing off Iowa and New Hampshire. Sacrificing Florida just to keep the early states happy doesn't make sense for anyone, even in the logic-defying netherworld that is the primary system.</p>
<p>Florida Republicans, meanwhile, are having a field day, mocking the Democratic candidates for showing up only to raise money and <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/florida_republicans_use_democr.php">offering</a> Democrats the chance to change parties. (The RNC is merely slashing Florida's delegation in half, as opposed to the DNC's full purge.) If that's not enough to make Howard Dean nervous, maybe the prospect of a Democrat losing in November is.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 8,&nbsp;5:55 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#whatsthematter">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>) <a></a></p>
<p><strong><strong>A</strong></strong><strong><strong>ll Eyes on <a>Fred</a></strong>: </strong>As the Republicans gear up for Tuesday's debate in Michigan, Fred Thompson has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/us/politics/08thompson.html?_r=1&amp;ref=todayspaper&amp;oref=slogin">reportedly</a> been going through a <em>Rocky</em>-style training regimen. He's enlisted the help of former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, who has been playing Rudy Giuliani during their mock debates. And like any good fighter, he's no doubt reviewing his old reels. Here's one, from his 1994 Senate race against Rep. Jim Cooper, that shows a more combative Thompson than most people are used to. When Cooper attacks him for renting a red pickup truck as a &quot;Hollywood stage prop,&quot; Thompson responds with a sarcastic &quot;Ooooo.&quot; He later tells Cooper to &quot;shut up, just shut up.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p></p>
<p>The prickly style might not fly this time. After skipping out on the last GOP debate to appear on <em>The Tonight Show</em>, he'll likely have some answering to do. And with Mitt and Rudy engaged in <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175053/#taxattacks">full-blown informational warfare</a>, Thompson will have a chance to come across as the cool-headed one. Just not so cool-headed he has to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n70nDi4XRC8">ask for applause</a>. (Speaking of which, Darrell Hammond this weekend added another <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YebkIsNBkRs">withering impression</a> to his repertoire.) </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 8,&nbsp;12:25 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Eyes">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:25:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/win_a_wedding_with_rudy_giuliani.htmlChristopher BeamJohn DickersonBrad FloraChadwick Matlin2007-10-08T16:25:00ZAnd other campaign contests we'd like to see.News and PoliticsCampaign contests we'd like to see.2175470Christopher BeamJohn DickersonBrad FloraChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2175470falsefalsefalseCampaign contests we'd like to see.Campaign contests we'd like to see.Rep. Duncan Hunter of California&nbsp;All the Ragehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/all_the_rage.html
<p> <a><strong>All the Rage:</strong></a> Republicans and Democrats are in an umbrage war and the GOP is winning. When MoveOn.org questioned Gen. David Petraeus in an <a href="https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html">ad in the <em>New York Times</em></a>, Republican presidential candidates raced to show their outrage. Now some Democrats are trying to offer a similar response to Rush Limbaugh, who used the phrase &quot;phony soldiers&quot; during a call-in conversation about American soldiers who oppose the war. Rep. Mark Udall authored legislation condemning the remarks, and Senate Majority Leader <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000146/">Harry Reid</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/reid.limbaugh/?iref=mpstoryview">sent a letter to Limbaugh's boss</a> &nbsp;asking him to disavow them. (<a href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Clear%20Channel%20reply.pdf">He didn't</a>.) Limbaugh, for his part, fought back on his radio show—<a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125112.guest.html?loc=interstitialskip">insisting that Democrats were trying to &quot;smear&quot; him</a> and purposely taking his comments out of context. How did the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates respond? Only John Edwards showed the intensity that GOP candidates did over the MoveOn controversy. Here's a breakdown of how upset everyone is: </p>
<p><strong>DEMOCRATS</strong></p>
<p><strong>Hillary Clinton <br /></strong><strong>MoveOn: </strong>&quot;I don't <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/09/sweet_blog_special_clintons_su.html">condone</a> attacks on any American who has served our country honorably and with dedication the way General Petraeus has.&quot;<br /><strong>Limbaugh:&nbsp; </strong>Did not comment, but <a href="http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699">signed</a> Sen. Harry Reid's letter.</p>
<p><strong>Barack Obama <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;General Petraeus has <a href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2007/09/20/obama_0921.html">served this country honorably</a>. And I think it probably was a distraction to try to attack him as opposed to George Bush's policies.&quot; Did <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/20/372106.aspx">not vote</a> on Sept. 20 Senate measure to condemn MoveOn.org because &quot;the focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements.&quot;<br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Did not comment, but <a href="http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699">signed</a> Sen. Harry Reid's letter.</p>
<p><strong>John Edwards <br /></strong><strong>MoveOn: </strong>Elizabeth Edwards: &quot;Someone who's spent their life in the military <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS/70914014/1001/LIFE">doesn't deserve</a> 'General Betray Us.' &quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Elizabeth Edwards <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Elizabeth_Takes_on_Limbaugh.html">called Limbaugh a draft dodger</a> &nbsp;and said: &quot;Rush Limbaugh <a href="http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070928-limbaugh/">should be ashamed of himself</a> for calling brave members of our military 'phony soldiers.' There's nothing phony about the sacrifices being made by any of our troops in Iraq.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Bill Richardson <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;They <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/19/richardson-moveon-wrong-to-publish-betray-us-ad/">shouldn't</a> have done it.&quot;<br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Joe Biden <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;I think it was a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296957,00.html">mistake</a>. But I don't think it's a capital offense.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh: </strong>Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Chris Dodd <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;It is a <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/clinton-dodd-vo.html">sad day</a> in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Has not commented, but his spokesman said: &quot;The comments impugn the patriotism and service of American troops simply because they have voiced their opposition to this failed policy. … [Limbaugh] has no idea what the brave men and women of our armed forces are ostensibly fighting for.&quot; </p>
<p><strong>Dennis Kucinich <br />MoveOn:</strong> Has not commented, but was one of 79 congressmen to <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll910.xml">vote against</a> condemning the ad in a Sept. 26 vote. <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>REPUBLICANS </strong></p>
<p><strong>Rudy Giuliani <br />MoveOn:</strong> Ran a <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/62696">newspaper ad</a> challenging Hillary Clinton to denounce MoveOn and <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/14/giuliani_slams_times_over_anti_petraeus_ad/">called</a> the ad &quot;character assassination of an American general in a time of war.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Has not commented.</p>
<p><strong>Mitt Romney <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;The MoveOn.org <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Vision_MoveOn">attack</a> on General Petraeus is, frankly, entirely unacceptable … for MoveOn.org to attack him as they did is simply unacceptable and reprehensible.&quot; <strong>Limbaugh:</strong>&nbsp;Romney spokesman: &quot;Governor Romney <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/28/romney-criticizes-limbaug_n_66363.html">would disagree</a> with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. … Those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion.&quot; </p>
<p><strong>Fred Thompson <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;I <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/10/thompson-calls-on-democrats-to-return-moveonorg-donations/">call upon</a> the Democratic party and all those Democratic contenders for the White House to disavow this libel against this brave American.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> &quot;[Limbaugh] is one <a href="http://www.fred08.com/NewsRoom/PressRelease.aspx?ID=1d414835-1cef-4a1b-b137-885a215eae92">of the strongest supporters</a> of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough.&nbsp; I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>John McCain <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;It's <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/politics/main3262322.shtml">disgraceful</a>, it's got to be retracted and condemned by the Democrats, and MoveOn.org ought to be thrown out of this country.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> &quot;I <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/mccain_the_rush_issue_is_close.html?xid=rss-swampland">can't tell you</a> the number of times I have misspoken, and when I have, I've tried to correct it and tried to move on. I think Rush is saying he was only talking about one figure. To me, this issue is closed.&quot; </p>
<p><strong>Mike Huckabee <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;The <a href="http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&amp;ID=260">disgraceful act</a> of the leftist organization, moveon.org, has marked a new low watermark in American discourse.&quot;<br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong>&nbsp; Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Ron Paul <br />MoveOn:</strong> Has not commented, but <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll910.xml">voted in favor</a> of a resolution condemning the ad. <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Sam Brownback <br />MoveOn: </strong>&quot;It's despicable and wrong.&quot;<br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong>&nbsp; Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Duncan Hunter <br />MoveOn:</strong> &quot;I <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296305,00.html">call on the leadership</a> of the Democrat Party to denounce this advertisement and disassociate themselves from it.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong>&nbsp;Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Tom Tancredo <br /></strong><strong>MoveOn:</strong> &quot;What was perhaps <a href="http://tancredo.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1304">most disturbing</a> throughout this entire ordeal has been the overt desire by the left and groups like MoveOn.org to do all that they can to assure the failure of the U.S. mission abroad.&quot; <br /><strong>Limbaugh:</strong> Has not commented. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Brad Flora and John Dickerson, </strong>Oct. 5,&nbsp;2:5x p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#Rage">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Dead</strong> <a><strong>Horse</strong></a><strong>: </strong>You may have heard by now that Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war five years ago.</p>
<p>If not, turn on your TV: Obama caps his four-day &quot;Judgment and Experience&quot; tour with a <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpbo43/">new ad</a> featuring a retired four-star general testifying to Obama's—you guessed it—judgment and experience. &quot;Barack Obama opposed this war from the start, showing insight and courage others did not,&quot; says Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who commanded the Air Force during Operation Desert Storm. </p>
<p>Obama has been harping on his initial opposition to the war for some time now. He mentioned it in his <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/2007/02/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_11.php">campaign announcement speech</a>. He brings it up at every debate. And he just spent a week patting himself on the back for a decision that, while prescient, many people <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_an/obama_analysis">don't see as a massive gamble</a>. The real gamble, it turns out, is basing so much of his campaign on that one stance he took five years ago. </p>
<p>The problem is, his attack on Hillary for voting to authorize the war—if you can call vague allusions to &quot;judgment&quot; and &quot;Washington insiders&quot; an attack—doesn't seem to be working. Hillary is <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clinton13sep13,1,3833607.story?coll=la-headlines-nation">popular</a> among the anti-war left and has pushed for withdrawal at least as vigorously as Obama has. Plus, her initial support of the war means she doesn't have to strike poses to prove her toughness—see Obama's remarks about <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story">bombing Pakistan and Iran</a>. Most Democratic voters don't see Hillary's vote for the war as a deal breaker. Obama should probably stop pretending that it is. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 5,&nbsp;12:30 a.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#Horse">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 4, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Tax Attacks:</a></strong> The GOP debate in Michigan on the economy doesn't happen till next week, but Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are already circling the ring. The two candidates seem determined to show who can send out the most press releases boasting the biggest tax cuts using the biggest fonts. </p>
<p>Yesterday, Giuliani <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/giuliani-launch.html">kicked off</a> &quot;Rudy Makes Cents&quot; week (my calendar was marked) by <a href="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/842">listing</a> his &quot;23 tax cuts&quot; as mayor of New York City. Today he <a href="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/846">highlighted</a> his cuts to the city work force and the privatization of city-owned businesses. He's <a href="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/849">stacking up</a> his own record against Romney's in Massachusetts. He even trotted out another former GOP Bay State governor, Paul Cellucci, to show that for many Republicans, ideology trumps geographical loyalty. </p>
<p>Romney, meanwhile, announced the endorsement of New Hampshire anti-tax advocate Tom Thompson and <a href="http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Policy_Briefing_Blueprint_To_Lower_Taxes">released</a> &quot;A Conservative Blueprint to Lower Taxes.&quot; The plan makes all the necessary overtures to renewing Bush's tax cuts, eliminating the &quot;death tax&quot; and cutting taxes for corporations. But at next week's debate, it's not what he <em>will do</em> but what he <em>has done</em> that Romney will have to address. Romney had a $3 billion deficit to balance when he took office in 2003, and he didn't fix it by cutting spending alone. He'll tell you he didn't raise taxes but merely &quot;closed&quot; &quot;loopholes&quot;—a distinction that isn't likely to find a lot of sympathy next Tuesday. </p>
<p>Giuliani has garbled the subject of taxes, too. He says he believes slashing taxes always raises revenue—a notion that, while popular among some crowds, has been <a href="http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/giuliani-and-th.html">all</a> <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/13/81426/9950">but</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Big-Con-Washington-Hoodwinked-CrackpotEconomics/dp/0618685405">debunked</a>. This idea led to his bizarre statement that he would <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_taxes">pay for tax cuts with more tax cuts</a>. (And for those? <em>More</em> tax cuts!) So far, the other candidates haven't called him out on it. In fact, McCain pretty much <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/03/mccain-on-laffer-curve.html">agreed</a>.</p>
<p>But who knows, if the two campaigns keep sparring at this level, maybe they won't even need to have the debate.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 4,&nbsp;6:47 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#taxattacks">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Green party: </a></strong>Is Al Gore listening?</p>
<p>Today Sen. Hillary Clinton marked the 50<sup>th</sup> anniversary of <em>Sputnik 1</em> by decrying the Bush administration's &quot;war on science&quot; and calling for a new era of scientific innovation to match the one inspired by <em>Sputnik</em>. In other words, global warming is the new space race. It's time to &quot;think outside the box,&quot; she said. &quot;And the tank.&quot; The only thing missing was a swirling atmospheric projection screen behind her.</p>
<p>Gore hasn't endorsed any of the Democratic candidates yet, but he has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801458.html">indicated</a> that he will before the primaries. If today's speech doesn't convince him to go with Hillary, I'm not sure what will. Her plan massaged all the greenie erogenous zones: offering tax breaks for businesses that use renewable energies, ending political tinkering with the government's scientific reports, and the return of &quot;evidence-based&quot; environmental policy. </p>
<p>She had a few new ideas, too—a renewable energy research organization modeled on DARPA, incentives for green technology exports, and a &quot;health information technology&quot; database to make it easier to share medical data. (She also called for more TV shows about scientists to do for that profession what <em>CSI</em>&nbsp;did for&nbsp;forensics.)</p>
<p>Gore must like what he's hearing. And signs indicate that the frosty Clinton-Gore relationship is thawing, at least on the surface, as he and Bill <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_us/clinton_global_initiative">appeared together</a> at the Clinton Global Initiative in September. If he wins the Nobel Peace Prize on Oct. 12, whoever he endorses will probably&nbsp;want to ride that wave of publicity. So, given the Clinton campaign's gift for timing—she recently eclipsed Obama's &quot;I was right about Iraq&quot; speech with her third-quarter fund-raising totals—we can probably expect to hear something soon after.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 4,&nbsp;1:56 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#greenparty">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Hillary's Forgery?</a></strong> Sen. Hillary Clinton posted a <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=14019">handwritten note</a> on her Web site Tuesday thanking her supporters for her <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/us/politics/03campaign.html?ref=politics">best-in-show fund-raising haul</a>. So naturally, I asked a handwriting analyst to tell me what Hillary's scrawl said about her personality.</p>
<p>But first, I wanted to confirm the note was actually written by Hillary. I called her press office—message taken. An hour and a half later, I called back to check in—another message taken. Clearly this was not at the top of their to-do pile, but I just needed a yes or a no. </p>
<p>When I tried calling the Web team, a woman picked up the phone. I asked if she knew whether Clinton had written the note herself. Silence. I started to say, &quot;I'm not sure you know the answer …,&quot; but she cut me off: &quot;I do … but I don't know if … hold on.&quot; When she came back on the line, she told me I'd have to wait for the press office to call me back. I'm still waiting, 44-plus hours and a half-dozen calls and e-mails later.</p>
<p>I'll take that as a &quot;no comment.&quot; But seriously, what is there to hide? Did somebody forge Hillary's note? If not, then why is it a state secret? If so, does the senator know about it? The campaign introduces the note by saying they're going to let her &quot;speak for herself.&quot; Did they mean to say they'd let her dictate to someone with good penmanship? Has Hillary Clinton been hanging out with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter_(TV_series)">Ghostwriter</a>? America deserves an answer.</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, the handwriting analyst, <a href="http://bartbaggett.com/">Bart Baggett</a>, said the note's writing implied the author was sarcastic, a good debater, and sensitive to criticism. Maybe it's hers after all.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 4,&nbsp;12:40 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#hillforge">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Oct. 3, 2007</strong></p>
<p> <a><strong>Rudy on the Radio</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Rudy Giuliani's out with a <a href="http://blip.tv/file/408782">new radio spot</a> in New Hampshire. It's called &quot;Tested,&quot; and it adds another brush stroke to the image of the Man Who Might As Well Already Be President. </p>
<p>The message: Rudy's been to hell and back (not to mention Britain), and he's ready to do it again to keep America safe. People who look at him are &quot;not going to find perfection, but they're gonna find somebody who's dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results.&quot; He doesn't mention 9/11 explicitly, but he does drop his line about going &quot;on offense against terrorism.&quot; Bottom line: Rudy is &quot;the Republican that Democrats just don't want to run against.&quot; This last part echoes another Rudy ad, which said he's MoveOn.org's &quot;<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174057/#nightmare">worst nightmare</a>.&quot; In other words, there are two cohorts that should be afraid of a Giuliani presidency: terrorists and Democrats.</p>
<p>Rudy also rejects Democratic overtures to consensus and unity. He plans to go it alone if that's what it takes: &quot;We laid out a very, very specific set of goals that we want to achieve because I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about.&quot; Got a problem with that? </p>
<p>It's a blustery tactic, but one that seems to be working. (The latest poll <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202328.html">shows him</a> with twice the support of Fred Thompson, his closest rival.) He doesn't need to convince you he's right—there's no time for that. Instead, he'll <em>do</em> what's right, and you'll find out only years later, once he's already saved you from getting nuked five times over. That's when you'll thank him, and you'll thank yourself for voting for him.</p>
<p>Unlike Mitt Romney, who has <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174057/#scold">jumped on board</a> the Democrats' &quot;change&quot; theme, Giuliani is sticking with what he does best: strength, efficiency, and haunting the nightmares of liberals. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 3,&nbsp;5:25 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#Rudy">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Paul's Pot:</a></strong>Over the last three months, Ron Paul convinced the American people to give him $5 million. That's more than Mike Huckabee, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden raised, combined. Against all conventional wisdom, the formerly libertarian, now anti-war, Republican may be less of a long shot than people thought, thanks to his hefty bank account.</p>
<p>Paul upped his fund-raising haul by 114 percent from the second quarter, according to his campaign. Most impressively, Paul managed to increase his total as the rest of the field's coffers took a nosedive (with the exception of fund-raising neophyte Fred Thompson). McCain is <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1007/McCains_money.html">rumored</a> to be down at least 50 percent from his second-quarter total and $2 million in debt, Giuliani's amount remains a mystery, and Romney has pumped his own money into his campaign again.</p>
<p>If Paul's raking in all of this money (his campaign says he's got $5.3 million on hand), does that mean he's ready to emerge from the second tier? Well, there's that pesky issue of public opinion that's standing in the way. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100107.html">One poll</a> has him at 3 percent nationally, while <a href="http://americanresearchgroup.com/">another</a> shows him hovering between 2 percent and 3 percent in the early primary states. So, where's all that cash going to go? Like any good libertarian, Paul's spending it on himself. His campaign plans to buy more ad time in Iowa and New Hampshire and expand its national staff to start the long climb to the front of the pack.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Paul's second-tier colleague Mike Huckabee posted a lackluster <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/huckabees_money.html">million-dollar quarter</a>, despite heavy post-straw poll national press coverage. Looks like he was right <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2175053/#huckabeeterror">when he said</a> this would be his campaign's best quarter yet, but a $234,000 increase isn't exactly progress.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 3,&nbsp;4:50 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#paulspot">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>&iquest;D&oacute;nde Est&aacute;n?:</strong></a> Only four of the eight major Democratic presidential candidates showed up to today's event hosted by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. There weren't any <a href="http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/09/what_if_you_gave_a_debate_and.html">empty lecterns</a> this time, but the absences of Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama were conspicuous, given Richardson's ethnicity, Dodd's Spanish skills, and Obama's <a href="http://www.amigosdeobama.com/">reggaeton theme song</a>. </p>
<p>The price for snubbing Latino voters could be high. With a large and growing presence in states like Florida, California, New York, and Arizona, Hispanics are expected to play a bigger role than ever in 2008. And after President Bush's failed immigration bill alienated segments of the Latino population, Democrats have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/us/politics/10hispanics.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">pushing hard</a> to get their votes. Republicans haven't exactly been pushing back—instead they've been declining invitations left and right, first to the <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbdebate0907nbsep07,0,3120774.story">Univision debate</a>, now to this event. Bill Richardson also cited a scheduling conflict, but will be attending tonight's reception, according to his spokesman.</p>
<p>The ones who did show seemed to get the message. Joe Biden was his usual enthusiastic self: &quot;I no longer consider the Hispanic community a minority community,&quot; he said to applause. &quot;I consider it a mainstream community.&quot; Dennis Kucinich slammed GOP attempts to use immigration &quot;to divide us&quot; and promised all immigrants a &quot;path to citizenship.&quot; (He also weighed in on <em>In the Valley of Elah</em>: &quot;worth seeing.&quot;) Mike Gravel seemed unhindered by notes of any kind, and by the end of his speech a lot of the audience was chatting loudly. Clinton, on task as usual, touched on education, health care, and immigration, and appeared to have the most support. (Although that could have been her vocal entourage.)</p>
<p>As for the no-shows, at least they have Romney/McCain/Giuliani to make them look good.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 3,&nbsp;2:41 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#dondeestan">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007</strong></p>
<p> <a><strong>The Google primary:</strong></a> What do people think about when they think about the 2008 presidential candidates? To find out, I spent a few hours with Google. Back in August, <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>'s Josh Levin <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2171669/">revealed</a> the glories of <a href="http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&amp;complete=1">Google Suggest</a>, which lets you see instantly which search queries are the most popular: Paul Potts is searched for more often than Paul McCartney, and more people want to know about &quot;tom cruise height&quot; than &quot;tom cruise and katie holmes.&quot;</p>
<p>Google Suggest reveals that most people are looking for the obvious candidate-related material: Wikipedia pages, campaign sites, biographies. But it's the anomalies that provide a glimpse into our collective thinking. A few distinct patterns emerge: </p>
<p><strong>Wives matter:</strong> People want to get to know Elizabeth Kucinich. When you type &quot;dennis kucinich&quot; into Google Suggest, you learn that more people are searching for &quot;dennis kucinich wife&quot; than &quot;dennis kucinich for president.&quot; What do they want to know about her? According to the suggestion results for her name, people are looking for &quot;pictures,&quot; &quot;photos,&quot; &quot;age,&quot; &quot;hot,&quot; and &quot;tongue.&quot; (It's pierced.) The Republican field has a woman of choice, too: Three of the top 10 search queries after &quot;fred thompson&quot; are wife-related. The query &quot;joe biden wife,&quot; however, doesn't appear until the candidate's 10<sup>th</sup> result. Ouch.</p>
<p><strong>Dirty minds:</strong> Among Hillary Clinton's most popular searches is &quot;hillary clinton cleavage&quot;—no doubt fueled by all the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html">hard-hitting</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/politics/28hillary.html?ex=1343275200&amp;en=0682aaa526042802&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">reporting</a> on the subject. Of course, that's innocent compared with Rudy's most popular associations: Search for &quot;Rudy Giuliani&quot; and three of the top 10 suggested queries are related to cross-dressing. Other results provide a glimpse into America's fantasies: If you type in &quot;obama&quot;, three of the top 10 results are some variation on &quot;obama girl.&quot; And why else would &quot;mitt romney larry craig&quot; be such a popular search?</p>
<p><strong>God is great:</strong> Everyone knows Mitt Romney's religion: As expected, people are searching for &quot;mitt romney mormon.&quot; But they're also curious—and mistaken, it seems—about Obama's beliefs. Type his name, and you see that &quot;barack obama muslim&quot; and &quot;barack obama religion&quot; are the second and fourth most-popular queries, respectively. Enter &quot;barack hussein&quot; into the search field and up pops &quot;barack hussein obama a muslim wants to be our president.&quot; </p>
<p><strong>Soft spots:</strong> Some search suggestions point out a candidate's weaknesses. &quot;John McCain age&quot; is up there, as is &quot;john edwards house&quot; and &quot;john edwards suv.&quot; Joe Biden's search slate is pretty clean, save for the seventh suggestion, &quot;joe biden plagiarism.&quot; It's a sad commentary on Chris Dodd's campaign that one of the most common Dodd queries is &quot;chris dodd fly,&quot; which takes you to a video of the senator <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2y8nkaL9A">debating with a bug on his head</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Name game: </strong>A handful of candidates are the most popular people to bear their first names. Fred Thompson is the most popular Fred on the Web, beating out Freddies Mercury and Mac. Dennis Kucinich bests Miller,&nbsp;Rodman, and Hopper. Mike Huckabee thumps Mike Gravel handily (but Vick and Tyson top them both). Clinton is the most popular Hillary on the Internet, beating out Duff and Swank. And Mitt Romney, thankfully, is more popular than <em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelschmerz">mittelschmerz</a></em>.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 2,&nbsp;2:17 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#googleprimary">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Monday, Oct. 1, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Match Point:</a></strong> The third quarter fund-raising numbers are trickling in: Obama raised $19 million, Hillary is <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/the_fundraising_bottom_line.php">reportedly</a> in the same ballpark, Thompson raked in more than $8 million, and McCain's and Richardson's coffers each totaled over $5 million. But the numbers getting the most attention are John Edwards', thanks to his <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/A_matter_of_principle.html">not desperate at all</a> decision last week to accept public matching funds.</p>
<p>Edwards finished the quarter with $7 million in new donations and $12 million in the bank, according to his campaign. If you count the public funds, they say, he'll have $22 million cash on hand. But unlike his opponents, he'll now have to observe spending limits state by state. Here's a quick breakdown of how much he can spend on each of the first primary states: </p>
<p>Iowa: $1.5 million <br />New Hampshire: $817,000<br />Nevada: $1.2 million<br />Michigan: $5 million<br />South Carolina: $2.1 million <br />Florida: $9.2 million<br />(Source: <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2007.shtml">Federal Elections Commission</a>)</p>
<p>These limits&nbsp;needn't be crippling. Iowa and NH have tougher spending caps than the other states,&nbsp;but even there, the rules for how you allocate spending are flexible. For example, you can mark half of your spending for any state as fund-raising money, which is then exempt from state limits, up to a total of $8 million. You also get some wiggle room, since the limits don't include TV-advertising expenditures in nearby markets. For instance, you can advertise on Boston stations that broadcast in New Hampshire without that counting toward your spending cap. Staff salaries aren't included either—just advertising, polling, phone banks, and other nonhuman expenditures.</p>
<p>So, with a little creativity, the Edwards team might still have a chance (despite <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/09/28/trippi-oping-out-of-public-financing-would-leave-nominee-like-dukakis-getting-the-living-shit-kicked-out-of-him-all-summer-long/">previous statements to the contrary</a>). Unclear, though, is whether anyone will buy his attempt to paint the public funding decision as a &quot;challenge&quot; to Hillary and Obama to do the same. Maybe if those candidates see their coffers dry up soon, they'll find themselves experiencing a similar ethical epiphany.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 1,&nbsp;6:59 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#matchpoint">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Commander in Chef</a>:</strong> Not content with the Romney family's already-massive digital footprint, the Romney campaign has launched <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/Ann-Romney/index">AnnRomney.com</a>. The campaign says Ann's site offers an &quot;insider's perspective&quot; into the Romney family, which we guess wasn't covered by Mitt's own site, MittTV, or the <a href="http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/">Five Brothers</a> blog.</p>
<p>The most intriguing section of the site is &quot; <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/Ann-Romney/Feature">Ann's Recipes</a>,&quot; where Ann shares her favorite delicacies with Romney supporters. This week, she's decided to help all of us make that old family classic, Welsh Skillet Cakes. In true Romney fashion, the site leaves a space to enter your own recipe for the chance to have it published on Five Brothers. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174313/nav/fix/#BringYourOwnDip">Mr. Reed</a>, the floor is open for the &quot; <a href="http://www.jumpcut.com/view/?id=AE031584614311DC9B68000423CF3686">Way!</a> Souffl&eacute;.&quot;&nbsp;</p>
<p>We couldn't help but make our own recipe suggestion:</p>
<p>Spaghetti and Mittballs: Mix pasta with two parts pro-life and one-part <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI">expired pro-choice</a>.&nbsp;For the Mittballs, mash together a hunk of shoe polish, a pile of money, and a glob of hair gel, and let sit until January 2008.&nbsp;Marinate in <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=vFyDWjATbok">America's moral cesspool</a> before roasting over the Salt Lake Olympic torch. Serve with Caffeine-Free Diet Coke.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Don't worry if it looks unappetizing at first, polls suggest tastemakers find it palatable.</p>
<p> <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx">Got any others?</a></p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin, </strong>Oct. 1,&nbsp;4:44 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Commander">link</a>) ( <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) ( <a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Dems and Mormons:</a></strong> Another curious detail from the latest <em> <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/">Newsweek poll</a></em>: In response to the question, &quot;Do you think America is ready to elect a Mormon president, or not?&quot;, 45 percent of registered Republicans responded yes, while only 35 percent said no. But among Democrats, the numbers were practically flipped: Only 33 percent said America was ready for a Mormon president, while 51 percent said it was not. What happened to Democrats being the party of tolerance and inclusion? </p>
<p>&quot;The problem with generic questions like that is that when people think about them, they think about candidates out there now,&quot; says Larry Hugick of Princeton Survey Research Associates International, which conducted the study. In other words, when you say &quot;Mormon,&quot; they hear &quot;Romney.&quot;</p>
<p>But with liberals <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054583.php">grilling</a> John McCain for <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html">telling</a> Beliefnet he <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054583.php">wouldn't want a Muslim</a> in the Oval Office, you'd think some folks on the right would point to <em>Newsweek</em>'s findings as evidence that Democrats are no more tolerant than McCain. At the very least, that logic could surface during the general election if Romney gets the nomination. Would a Mormon GOP nominee make Democrats the agents of intolerance?</p>
<p><strong>Update:</strong> A reader points out that some of the Democrats polled probably weren't expressing their own intolerance, but rather their lack of faith in Republicans' ability to elect a Mormon.&nbsp;Agreed! But I also think that if Romney got the nomination, the right rhetoric could cast Democrats' anti-Romneyism as anti-Mormonism.&nbsp; </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 1,&nbsp;2:33 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#demsmormons">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Poll Dance</a>: </strong>A <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/"><em>Newsweek</em> poll</a> released over the weekend has survey wonks chattering over who's beating whom in Iowa. The big (supposed) news: It gives Hillary a six-point lead among Democratic voters, but has Obama leading by four points among &quot;likely caucus-goers.&quot; Some bloggers have expressed <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=147694">doubts</a> about the poll given its gaping margins of error (+/- 7 percent for likely Democratic caucus-goers; +/- 9 percent for their GOP counterparts). But it also raises the perennial question: How do you define a &quot;likely caucus-goer&quot;?</p>
<p>Depends who you ask—there are virtually as many definitions as there are pollsters. In the <em>Newsweek</em> poll, they asked each subject to rate themselves on a four-grade scale of definitely attending, probably attending, probably NOT attending, and definitely not attending. They then define a &quot;likely caucus-goer&quot; as someone who said they are either &quot;definitely&quot; or &quot;probably&quot; attending. </p>
<p>Some polls will also factor in whether a respondent attended previous caucuses. For example, a poll conducted by <a href="http://srbi.com/time_poll_arc42.html"><em>Time</em>/SRBI</a> last August defined a &quot;likely voter&quot; as someone who said they were either, &quot;100% certain that they would attend the Iowa caucuses&quot; or were &quot;probably going to attend and reported that they had attended a previous Iowa caucus.&quot; The <em>Newsweek</em> poll reports that among likely Democratic caucus-goers, 64 percent attended a previous caucus, but it doesn't factor this into its &quot;likely caucus-goer&quot; definition. </p>
<p>So, why can't they just standardize the definition? Because no one's sure which methodology best reflects reality. Iowa polling is already a crapshoot since the caucus process is so complicated. For example, there's no way to simulate the rule that caucus-goers whose candidates get less than 15 percent support in a given precinct have to throw their weight behind a more popular candidate. Results also vary depending on whom pollsters talk to. <em>Newsweek</em> used a random digit dial sample; other surveys draw from lists of registered voters. Plus, turnout depends largely on each candidate's ground organization—if Obama <a href="http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/22/news/iowa/3d06824cc7f1e10c8625735e000ce490.txt">gets students to turn out</a> in record numbers in Iowa, that could throw off polling accuracy. Of course, you can't even begin to gauge organization levels until closer to the primaries, and even then it's hard to measure. </p>
<p>The good news is, help is on the way. Pollster.com has kicked off what it calls <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_pollstercom_disclosure_pro.php">The Disclosure Project</a>, a campaign to make polling firms release more info about their methodology. In particular, they're pushing for transparency as to what defines a likely caucus-goer. Mark Blumenthal, the site's&nbsp;editor and publisher, says he plans to release the first batch of results later this week.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Oct. 1,&nbsp;1:30 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#polldance">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>)&nbsp;(<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:34:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/10/all_the_rage.htmlChristopher BeamJohn DickersonBrad FloraChadwick Matlin2007-10-01T17:34:00ZWho's stirring up the candidates more: MoveOn or Limbaugh?News and PoliticsWho's stirring up the candidates more: MoveOn or Limbaugh?2175053Christopher BeamJohn DickersonBrad FloraChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2175053falsefalsefalseWho's stirring up the candidates more: MoveOn or Limbaugh?Who's stirring up the candidates more: MoveOn or Limbaugh?Rudy GiulianiWho Invited Wyoming?http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/09/who_invited_wyoming.html
<p><strong> <a>Who Invited Wyoming?:</a></strong>This weekend, <a href="http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/09/28/news/top_story/832bb0ea419f4a5487257364000407d0.txt">three Republicans will campaign</a> in the state that, for now, will be the first in the country to vote for the GOP nominee. No, they're not going to Iowa. They're flying out to Wyoming.</p>
<p>Twelve of Wyoming's 28 Republican National Convention delegates will be chosen on Jan. 5, which as of right now puts them ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Wyoming doesn't hold a caucus or a primary. Instead, they're a convention state, so <a href="http://www.casperstartribune.net/video/video.php?v=candidates">they elect delegates</a> who make their affiliations known from the get-go. When you vote for the delegate you want to go to the convention, you're also voting for the candidate to whom he's pledged his support. Four months later, on May 30, they elect the remainder of the convention delegates.</p>
<p>This is the first time Wyoming is electing delegates this early. Originally, the plan was to vote on the same day as New Hampshire's primary, but vote-lust got the better of the state and they bumped it up to Jan. 5. (State law forbids that the election take place in 2007.) The Democrats, meanwhile, are still stuck in the middle of the pack, voting March 8.</p>
<p>Wyoming's under-the-radar importance has attracted only three Republicans to this weekend's presidential forums in Casper and Riverton. Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Duncan Hunter will make their pitches to prospective delegates and the general public, but the rest of their colleagues are sitting this one out.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>Sept. 28,&nbsp;6:01 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#wyomingGOP">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Folk the War on Terror!:</a></strong>Mike Huckabee cracked four jokes in a row before he even started a <a href="http://media.csis.org/csistv/?070928_huckabee">wide-ranging speech</a> at a think tank in Washington today. First he made fun of himself, then his religion, then the audience, and finally made a crack about O.J. Simpson. This, by the way, was during a speech about how Huckabee was planning on stopping terrorists from killing Americans.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/us/politics/13huckabee.html">press has been hyping</a> Huckabee's sense of humor since his strong finish in the Ames Straw Poll back in August. But as his speech progressed his humor wasn't what stood out, it was his <em>folksiness</em>. Huckabee's proposals sounded wholesome—rather than deadly, dour, and desperate—because he kept weaving analogies into his hard-line stances.</p>
<p>Huckabee used more than a half dozen analogies while saying he wants to keep troops in Iraq, launch surgical strikes in Pakistan (which sounded strangely similar to a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?hp">certain Democrat's plan</a>), and beef up the number of troops in our military. Some samples: America is like a neighborhood kid who has been gloating about how easy life is for him; Islamic fundamentalism is like an explosion—the terrorist leadership is the spark, the oppressed lower class is the fuel, and the middle class is the firewall; al-Qaida in Iraq is like a branch office, while the corporate headquarters are in Pakistan.</p>
<p>Huckabee runs the risk of having his folksy touches imply he doesn't take terrorism and Iraq seriously. But Huckabee is purposely running a different type of Republican campaign than his opponents. He waited 40 minutes to talk about Democrats and then mentioned them only twice, casually saying they were taking the wrong approach on Iraq. When he brought up his faith in Gen. David Petraeus, he didn't touch upon MoveOn.org. He railed against the administration for not having more troops on the ground after the initial invasion of Iraq, using the same examples as the left-leaning documentary <em> <a href="http://noendinsightmovie.com/">No End in Sight</a>. </em>Huckabee told me his tactics are working thus far, promising his best fund-raising total yet when the quarter ends on Sunday.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>Sept. 28,&nbsp;5:18 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#huckabeeterror">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Name That Tour:</a> &nbsp;</strong>If you don't already know a candidate's weak spot, just look at his or her campaign tour name. The Obama campaign just announced a four-day &quot;Judgment and Experience&quot; tour. What are some other artless, hit-you-over-the-head tour names we're likely to see? </p>
<p>Fred Thompson's &quot;Hardworkin' Man&quot; tour <br />Rudy Giuliani's &quot;Marital Stability&quot; tour<br />John McCain's &quot;Forever Young&quot; tour<br />Mike Gravel's &quot;The Meds Are Working&quot; tour<br />Joe Biden's &quot;Listening&quot; tour<br />Bill Richardson's &quot;<a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/59334/">Born Gay</a>&quot; tour<br />Ron Paul's &quot;If Blogs Could Vote&quot; tour<br />John Edwards' &quot;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/edwards.public.financing/">Keep Your Filthy Money</a>&quot; tour<br />Hillary Clinton's &quot;Human Emotions&quot; tour<br />Mitt Romney's &quot;Straight Talk Express&quot;</p>
<p>Got more? Suggest them <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>Sept. 28,&nbsp;4:36 p.m. ET (<a>link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Invisible <a>Men</a>:</strong> Last night's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?hpid=topnews">no-shows</a> at the GOP forum at Morgan State University in Baltimore have by now been thoroughly slammed. The candidates who did show denounced their colleagues, with Sam Brownback calling their absence a &quot;disgrace.&quot; Newt Gingrich and former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?hpid=topnews">criticized</a> the front-runners for appearing not to care about minority voters. Not even Tavis Smiley, the forum's host, was smiling. </p>
<p>The real problem, though, is that the primary season inherently marginalizes African-American voters. A recently leaked Romney campaign <a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_gagememo.html">memo</a> reiterated the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire—two overwhelmingly white states. If the GOP campaigns are focused mainly on winning those two contests, there's no way they'd want to sacrifice a key day of third-quarter fund raising for a debate that won't have much effect on their chances for the nomination. </p>
<p>Just look at the likely primary schedule (as <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_primary_calendar_begins_to.php">estimated</a> by Marc Ambinder). Next to each state I've added its African-American population as a percentage of total population: </p>
<p>Jan. 5: &nbsp;Iowa caucuses – 2.1 percent</p>
<p>Jan. 8: &nbsp;New Hampshire primary – 0.7 percent</p>
<p>Jan. 12: Nevada caucuses – 6.8 percent</p>
<p>Jan. 15 Michigan primary – 14.2 percent</p>
<p>Jan. 19: South Carolina primary – 29.5 percent</p>
<p>Jan. 29: Florida primary – 14.6 percent<br />(Source: <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf">2000 Census</a> [PDF])</p>
<p>You can see why courting black voters simply isn't on the Republican front-runners' primary agenda. Especially this election season, when the Democratic field has particular appeal to African-Americans.</p>
<p>Of course, things change during the general election. Both parties have to think nationally. White-as-snow states have less leverage. And when that time comes, those empty lecterns are likely to come back to haunt the GOP nominee.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>Sept. 28,&nbsp;12:33 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Invisible">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Nader Baiters:</strong></a> Rumors of a Ralph Nader 2008 presidential run started swirling again this week when a pair of ads went up on Craigslist sites for <a href="http://desmoines.craigslist.org/npo/431186109.html">Iowa</a> and <a href="http://nh.craigslist.org/tfr/431197669.html">New Hampshire</a>, asking for organizers and interns for the &quot;Ralph Nader Democratic Caucus Campaign Draft Committee.&quot; (The NH ad has since been taken down.) A bunch of blogs <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122677.html">picked</a> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/25/18149/6587">it</a> <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/09/25/nader_preparing_for_another_run.html">up</a> as a sign of a potential campaign or, more likely, a campaign for a campaign. </p>
<p>But there are also plenty of signs he won't run. For one thing, it's unclear whether Nader would have enough supporters for a viable run. Meanwhile, he has practically <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/08/1044/">endorsed</a> Mike Gravel. Even less clear is whether the Craiglist ads are real—whoever posted them hasn't replied to my e-mails.</p>
<p>&quot;Seems like a hoax to me,&quot; Nader told me, adding that he hadn't heard about the Craiglist posts. And anyway, he said, &quot;these draft committees start all the time.&quot; The former Green Party candidate has been publicly <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/21/2020/">mulling</a> a 2008 run for the past few months, but says he hasn't yet made a decision. He'll know by the end of the year, he says, depending on whether he can drum up the necessary resources and staff. But either way, he wouldn't consider running as a Democrat. When he spoke at the Green Party's national convention in July, he got a warm reception. Did they want him to run again? &quot;I got that sense,&quot; he said.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 27,&nbsp;5:13 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#naderbaiters">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>Polling</a> a Fast One:</strong> CNN wants you to think it stumbled across stunning revelations in its <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/26/nh.gop.poll/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCText">New Hampshire poll released Wednesday</a>. Yet all the news that CNN has tried to squeeze out of it manages to be both flimsy and stale because of the admittedly high number of undecided New Hampshire voters.</p>
<p> <a>The </a> poll's most telling number: 66 percent of New Hampshire Republicans don't know who they'll vote for. <a href="http://www.slate.com#Correction">*</a> CNN doesn't want you to see that because it invalidates its headline grabber—that Mitt Romney's supposed advantage in the Granite State has slipped away since July. But there's one slight problem. When CNN asked N.H. residents who they were going to vote for, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/26/nh.gop.poll/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1">only 8 percent said they were &quot;unsure&quot;</a> (down from 13 percent in <a href="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/17/topnh4b.pdf">CNN's July poll</a>). But when they asked how sure those voters were of their choice, 66 percent said they were &quot;still trying to decide.&quot; </p>
<p>To recap: 8 percent of voters were unsure, but 66 percent were still trying to decide. Uh, did we miss something? </p>
<p>Mainstream media loves to tell us that these early polls are premature, but then they go and conduct their own premature poll. Once the results are in, they manipulate the stats to try&nbsp;to claim the news agenda through the Sunday talk shows. CNN is just the latest culprit of this hypocritical ego-trip.</p>
<p>The poll merely confirms what we've long known—the GOP race is <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/america/23repubs.php">in a fluid state</a>. But nuanced, wishy-washy statistics don't make headlines, and they certainly don't make good Breaking News tags for Wolf Blitzer.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>Sept. 27, 4:38 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#polling">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>The Warm Seat:</a></strong> The MySpace/MTV live dialogue with John Edwards just finished. Almost every question was a softball, and Edwards dutifully whacked them over the fence. Of course, it was a home game for him:&nbsp;At the end, 94 percent&nbsp;of&nbsp;the viewers said they liked his answers.</p>
<p>Here's a rough timeline of the proceedings. The dialogue airs again tonight at 7 p.m. on MTV.</p>
<p><strong>Noon</strong>&nbsp;I'm watching the&nbsp;forum live on MTV's &quot;Choose or Lose&quot;<a href="http://profile.myspace.com/election2008"> MySpace page</a>. It's a theater in the round, <em>VH1 Storytellers</em>-style. Hopefully Edwards remembered his hemp necklace.</p>
<p><strong>12:10</strong> Starting late, apparently. </p>
<p><strong>12:16</strong> Crickets, still. The audience waits patiently. OK, who's the diva? </p>
<p><strong>12:20</strong> No sound yet on the live feed. Now the audience seems restless.</p>
<p><strong>12:22</strong> Sound! I can hear Edwards! But I can't see him. Must be his lavalier mic. &quot;So, I'm taking this off?&quot;&nbsp;we hear him&nbsp;say. Hopefully, he's talking about the mic.</p>
<p><strong>12:26 </strong>Finally, it begins. Camera swoops in. Gideon Yago promises &quot;no delays, no censors, no tasers.&quot; If only!</p>
<p><strong>12:28</strong> Chris Cillizza, co-moderator and Washingtonpost.com <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/">blogger extraordinaire</a>, explains how we can watch people's feedback in a little box on the MySpace page. It's a real-time BS-meter! CNN, are you taking notes? </p>
<p><strong>12:29</strong> Edwards enters in jeans, a loose blazer, and an MTV News mic—looks oddly Loder-like. The first student asks about Euro-centric school curricula. What would Edwards do to change that? Edwards says he's all for curricular diversity. That said, &quot;the president of the United States doesn't run the public school system.&quot; Suggests providing funding as a reward for diversification. Congress would love that, I'm sure. </p>
<p><strong>12:32</strong> Another question: How are you going to make education affordable for everyone? As it turns out, Edwards has a program called … College for Everyone! (Was that kid a plant?) The gist: Work at least 10 hours a week, and America will pay for your tuition and books. </p>
<p><strong>12:35</strong> Cillizza follows up: How do you fund an education program that's so sweeping? Edwards: Get rid of banks as intermediaries in student loans. &quot;We'll still be making student loans, but several billion dollars a year can be made up for by eliminating the intermediary.&quot; Also, collect taxes that aren't being paid.</p>
<p><strong>12:37</strong> Question from a music student: There's not enough money for the arts. Sports teams get all of it. How would you fund arts programs? While Edwards makes a vague pledge to support the arts, the cameraman is circling him dramatically. Cinematography by McG? </p>
<p><strong>12:41</strong> The first IM question! LunarGoddess6B asks: Are you planning on increasing our taxes to pay for these programs? Edwards: &quot;The answer is yes. Politicians don't want to say it, but it's the truth.&quot; For one thing, he says, get rid of tax cuts for the wealthiest. Beyond that, raise capital gains tax from 15 percent&nbsp;to 28 percent for people who make over $250,000 a year. </p>
<p><strong>12:48</strong> Kelsey from New Orleans: What would you have done differently post-Katrina? Edwards: &quot;Everything.&quot; Says we need to rebuild levies, add police officers, and create 50,000 &quot;stepping-stone jobs&quot; for NOLA residents to rebuild their own city. Proposes &quot;Brownie's law,&quot; which would require anyone in charge of a federal agency to have experience in that field. Is Michael Brown watching this??? </p>
<p><strong>12:54</strong> Q: Do you believe AIDS is a national-security issue? Edwards: &quot;I have met with Bono personally to discuss this.&quot; This guy is good. Says he's pro-sex ed, pro-needle exchange, and wants to allocate $50 million over next five years to fighting AIDS. So, about Bono …</p>
<p><strong>12:58</strong> Q: How should&nbsp;the United States&nbsp;pressure China to help stop the genocide in Darfur? Edwards vows to ratchet up pressure, calls for Americans to personally divest from Sudan, and says we need security forces on the ground, since the African Union is doing a crappy job. Is the African Union watching this???</p>
<p><strong>1:00</strong> Cillizza reports that according to voting stats, only 11 percent of viewers thought Edwards dodged the question. This is where I realize: <em>I can vote as many times as I want!</em> Every time I click, the pie chart changes shape.&nbsp;The sense of power is overwhelming. </p>
<p><strong>1:05</strong> Back from commercial break. The jacket has come off! Edwards rejects the phrase &quot;global war on terror.&quot; &quot;I think there is a threat from terrorists,&quot; he says. &quot;But Bush has used this term as an excuse&quot; for Iraq, Guantanamo, wire-tapping, etc.</p>
<p><strong>1:08</strong> Promises to immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops from Iraq. Explains what combat troops are, a little condescendingly: &quot;Combat troops means war.&quot; Thank you, professor Edwards.</p>
<p><strong>1:14</strong> Here's a real curve ball: How would you implement universal health care? &quot;The reason we don't have universal health care is not complicated: It's because of the drug companies, the insurance companies, and their lobbyists.&quot; Repeats a joke from earlier speeches: &quot;If you give drug companies a seat at the table, they eat all the food.&quot; At least he's pro-recycling! </p>
<p><strong>1:18</strong> Cillizza again: &quot;Can you talk specifically about what your plan does that theirs don't do?&quot; Edwards: Sen. Obama's plan isn't universal. It might leave 12 million to 15 million Americans uncovered. President Clinton's plan is &quot;extremely similar to mine,&quot; so it's hard to be critical. </p>
<p><strong>1:21</strong> A student with a genetic degenerative eye disease asks about adult stem cells. Edwards: &quot;This is obviously something that matters a great deal to you.&quot; Yes, most likely. &quot;There should be no ideological limitations on stem cell research.&quot; Recommends doubling NIH funding for stem cell research.</p>
<p><strong>1:24</strong> Question about reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Edwards: &quot;Al Gore is right: Climate change is a crisis.&quot; Wants to cut emissions by 80 percentand implement cap-and-trade system. Says he'd ask Americans to &quot;sacrifice.&quot; Applause. &quot;This is a word you won't hear much. … You can't spend and innovate your way out of this problem.&quot; </p>
<p><strong>1:29</strong> Cillizza says about 94 percent of viewers liked Edwards' answers. My clicks probably account for about 60 percent of that.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 27,&nbsp;3:34 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#warmseat">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>MySpace, MTV, OMG:</strong></a> John Edwards once again dives head first into the realm of Internet campaigning, this time by participating in the first MTV/MySpace dialogue, today at noon. You can ask questions by <a href="http://www.myspace.com/election2008">downloading a program</a> called MySpaceIM or <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/fixcam_submit_your_questions_f.html#comments">leaving a comment</a> for Washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza, who will be co-moderating alongside Gideon Yago and SuChin Pak. Watch the dialogue <a href="http://www.myspace.com/election2008">here</a>, and try not to pass out from swooning.</p>
<p>The discussion is part of MTV's &quot;Choose or Lose&quot; campaign—a newer, friendlier &quot;Vote or Die&quot;—and its site <a href="http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0002D79C001A00989894/">promises</a> a more &quot;up-close&quot; and &quot;all-access&quot; forum than usual. &quot;[I]f you have tough questions or have that one question you always wished someone would ask, now's your chance!&quot; Hopefully, they'll follow through on this. The Democratic YouTube debate, which had shining moments like a gay couple asking about gay marriage, was a good first step. All we need now is an IM from a soldier in Baghdad—&quot;Can we go now?&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 27,&nbsp;11:38 a.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#edwardsmtv">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong> <a>On Demand:</a></strong> Speaking of <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2174597/#web2008">Web campaigning</a>, John Edwards is making a curious pit stop on Oct. 4 in the tiny town of Columbus, Ky. And by tiny, I mean practically uninhabited: 229 people live there. That gives them, what, 1/578 of an electoral vote?</p>
<p>The reason: Edwards held a &quot;Demand and Be Heard&quot; contest, promising to visit whichever city/town/hamlet most requested his presence on the event-planning site <a href="http://www.eventful.com/">Eventful.com</a>. Columbus won with 1,872 votes. (A spokesperson for the site says the town got help from people in the surrounding areas.) So now Edwards has to go, whether he likes it or not. </p>
<p>You'd think that might qualify as a good plan backfiring, but for Edwards, it sort of makes sense. Visiting a middle-of-nowhere crack in the American landscape is the kind of stunt that fits his small-town, populist image. I'll bet there's even a mill there.</p>
<p>Plus, the idea that people can influence where a candidate goes, even when they don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire, is compelling. Apparently both Obama and McCain have also been using the site to organize events. Think about what it says: <em>Even his itinerary is democratic!</em> Next thing you know we'll have a wiki-candidate, with&nbsp;thousands of users formulating people-powered platforms, designing bottom-up logos, and writing open-source speeches. Now <em>that</em> would be a man of the people. </p>
<p><strong>P.S.: </strong>You might&nbsp;think Eventful.com's &quot;demand&quot; numbers would mirror the polls, but right now Barack Obama's in the lead, with 34,560 &quot;demands.&quot;&nbsp;Ron Paul, bless him,&nbsp;comes in second, with 27,776 votes. Edwards is ranked third, with 11,421; and Hillary's in fourth, with 9,683. Maybe Hillary's supporters still want her&nbsp;to be president—they just don't really want to see her in person.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 26,&nbsp;7:08 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#ondemand">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Say Cheese!:</strong></a> Rudy Giuliani better hope he's photogenic, because his campaign has set up photo-op after photo-op in the past two weeks to convince voters he's presidential.</p>
<p>Last week, he met with British Prime Ministers <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070919/ids_photos_wl/r2742397267.jpg">Gordon Brown</a>, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070919/481/6f8f07f03bd4428296f569ffdd88c2bb">Tony Blair</a>, and <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070919/481/9549d2592d1c494d9b5f964dad252a2c">Margaret Thatcher</a>, coming away from each with impressive shots. Then, during a speech to the NRA, Giuliani <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070921/480/b4f7e8d444504dc889b649d7624fbcd6;_ylt=AleUMOKWk89JoQo5KcLGDoth24cA">took a call</a> from his wife, which earned him a cover shot in the <em>New York Daily News</em>.</p>
<p>Today, Giuliani tried to one-up himself when he <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070926/480/4700118be83c43169fb48993e8e0ff0c">sat down across</a> from Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to discuss Iraq policy. They met at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel, the same place President Bush recently <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070925/480/13b959ea9b8441b98e9cee7f63509bb7">gabbed</a> with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Note the photo-op hallmarks: crossed legs, earnest stare, and folded hands. While the PM was addressing the U.N. General Assembly today, the second-in-command took the time to talk with Giuliani—a move that makes the former mayor look second only to President Bush and the U.N. Not bad for a candidate <a href="http://www.slate.com/features/iraqposition/">who's never been to Iraq</a>.</p>
<p>All of this can backfire, of course, which is why the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, is trying to preserve her lead by <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3648738">keeping the press at bay</a>. But Giuliani seems to be succeeding by doing just the opposite.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>Sept. 26, 5:58 ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#cheese">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p> <a><strong>Web 2.008:</strong></a> &nbsp;The <a href="http://www.politico.com/"><em>Politico</em></a> hosted a panel today at the National Press Club on &quot;New Media and the 2008 Presidential Campaigns.&quot; Most of the panelists were communications folk from the Biden, Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson campaigns, and they spent a lot of&nbsp;the time touting their camps' respective social networks/MySpace pages/mashup contests. But things picked up when <em>Politico</em> Executive Editor Jim VandeHei asked the question we were all wondering: &quot;Who has the coolest site?&quot;</p>
<p>Everyone basically ducked the question. &quot;Obama's doing a great job, Romney's doing a great job,&quot; said Biden Web head Eric Carbone. &quot;I don't know if there's one necessarily doing <em>best</em>,&quot; hedged Thompson new media guru Jon Henke. &quot;I don't want to talk negative,&quot; said Macon Phillips of Blue State Digital. </p>
<p>But come on, someone must be dominating. So, let me toss it out there: Which candidate has the best Web site? Between Obama's <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/">custom-made social network</a>, Romney's <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/Mitt-TV/index">MittTV</a> and <a href="http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/">Five Brothers &quot;blog&quot;</a> (quotation marks theirs, not mine), and Giuliani's <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&amp;friendID=95972433">Running With Rudy MySpace page</a>, there's a lot to choose from. And no,&nbsp;Obama Girl's <a href="http://www.myspace.com/obamagirl">MySpace page</a> &nbsp;doesn't count. </p>
<p>Share your thoughts <a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 26,&nbsp;2:50 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#web2008">link</a>) (<a href="http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2174010/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2174597">discuss</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong></strong> <strong> <a>Barack TV:</a></strong> Hillary Clinton became Queen of All Media last weekend by blitzing all five Sunday talk shows to promote her health-care bill. Now it's time for her opponents to fire back. For Barack Obama, that means appearing on the twin pillars of political gravitas: <em>The View</em> and <em>The</em> <em>Tyra Banks Show</em>. (<em>Carson Daly</em> must have been booked.)</p>
<p>Curious choice for a candidate who has <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18367799/site/newsweek/">drawn</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700472.html">flak</a> for his alleged lack of substance. But he's not the only one who's logged serious time on the couch: Some '08 candidates have been courting the talk-show circuit as though it were a district in Iowa. Here are a few notable appearances:</p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>John Edwards and Matt Lauer <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goe8K7i6oyA">discussed</a> troop withdrawal on the <em>Today Show</em>. Last year, Edwards <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXdyrLmac68">plugged his book</a> on <em>The Late Show</em>.</li>
<li>John McCain <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53caXQKTs9Y">announced</a> his candidacy on <em>Letterman</em>. He also <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/senator-mccain-on-the-daily-show/">sparred</a> with Jon Stewart on &quot;support the troops.&quot;</li>
<li>Hillary Clinton <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV5Pd1Y0Btg">gabbed</a> about Christmas decorations on <em>The View</em>. She also <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS-iVY3mmxg">talked</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fILfGVTwoQ0">about</a> gay marriage with Ellen Degeneres.</li>
<li>Barack Obama <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeH7UMEK4xc">discussed</a> his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xHh7DZt1sg">gaffes</a> on <em>The Daily Show</em>. </li>
<li>Ron Paul <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU">explained</a> libertarianism to Bill Maher.</li>
<li>Fred Thompson <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWMIh7a5mRw">announced</a> his candidacy on <em>Jay Leno</em>. </li>
<li>Mike Huckabee <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=80701">discussed his book</a> on <em>The Daily Show</em>. </li>
<li>Joe Biden <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3eo57pBQwc">explained</a> his &quot;articulate&quot; gaffe to Jay Leno. He also went on the <em> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIRgd5mwXs">Today Show</a></em> and the <em> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYGpmKT9Iw">Late Show</a></em>. </li>
<li>Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.slate.com#http:#http://www.youtube.com/watch">talked about being perfect</a> on <em>The Tonight Show</em>.</li>
</ul>
<p>Personally, I think Huckabee gives the best performance of anyone. He's warm, reasonable, and disarmingly funny. It's the kind of schtick that gets you nodding along even when he's expressing ideas you abhor. Not&nbsp;a bad guy to have on your ticket if you're worried about looking overly stiff or aggressive.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 26,&nbsp;1:34 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#baracktv">link</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)<strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong>Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Recount Redux:</a></strong> In case you doubted that Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, here's further proof.</p>
<p>The upcoming HBO movie <em>Recount</em>, about the 2000 Florida elections, has an all-star cast to match the real-life hotshots who fought the battle of the ballots, <em>Variety</em> reported <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117972593.html?categoryid=14&amp;cs=1">yesterday</a>. As usual, the actors tend to be easier to look at than their real-world counterparts. It's a good thing, too: If there's anyone who could make us want to watch a movie about hanging chads, it's Kevin Spacey. </p>
<p>So, how faithfully do the actors resemble the stars of Florida 2000? Take a look for yourself: </p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>Kevin Spacey (1) as former Al Gore chief of staff and attorney Ron Klain (2) </li>
<li>Denis Leary (3) as veteran political operative Michael Whouley (4)</li>
<li>Laura Dern (5) as Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (6)</li>
<li>Ed Begley Jr. (7) as lawyer David Boies (8)</li>
<li>Bob Balaban (9) as lead Bush attorney Ben Ginsberg (10)</li>
<li>John&nbsp;Hurt (11) as former Secretary of State and Gore ally Warren Christopher (12)</li>
<li>Tom Wilkinson (13) as former Secretary of State and Bush ally James Baker (14)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 25,&nbsp;3:25 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#recount">link</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong></strong> <strong> <a>Union bust:</a></strong> Bad news for John Edwards. The Service Employees International Union <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/labor-shies-away-from-endorsement/">punted</a> again on its endorsement Monday after meeting with all three top Democratic candidates. For a while, it looked like they were leaning hard toward Edwards—he apparently won the straw poll at last week's conference—but now they're taking it back to the locals for another round of debate. If campaigns&nbsp;got&nbsp;blue balls, Team Edwards would be in agony.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, two more unions threw their hard hats into the ring: The Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6945527,00.html">endorsed</a> Hillary Clinton, while the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association backed Barack&nbsp;Obama. Both unions have relatively small memberships—100,000 members and 9,000 members, respectively—but it's significant that neither one went for Edwards.</p>
<p>So much for Edwards being the union shoo-in. Sure, he still has more total union members behind him than any other candidate—the mine workers, steelworkers, and carpenters unions made sure of that. But if the SEIU gets all expedient and swings Hillary's way, she might well overtake him. It seems like doubt over Edwards' ability to win is starting to outweigh all the time he's spent prowling the picket lines.</p>
<p>The other biggies—the Teamsters,&nbsp;AFSCME, and the American Federation of Teachers—are keeping mum on when or if they'll endorse. Chances are they at least want to see third-quarter fund-raising numbers before opening their coffers. </p>
<p> <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=D3B631A88D0B8851445CD36CD1BA0848?diaryId=1129">Read</a> &nbsp;a roundup of union endorsements, minus yesterday's additions.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 25,&nbsp;11:59 a.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#unionbust">link</a>) (<a href="mailto:jcbeam@gmail.com">tips</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong>Monday, Sept. 24, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Everybody out:</a></strong>In a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hM-e1ywxJs">new ad</a>, Gov. Bill Richardson says that as president he'll leave no residual troops in Iraq—a major foreign-policy difference between him and the Big Three. Whereas Obama, Clinton, and Edwards would leave noncombat troops there for security and support, Richardson wants everyone out. It's a point bloggers <a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/16/residual-troops-still-crickets/">have</a> <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1169">been</a> <a href="http://drewthaler.mydd.com/story/2007/9/21/121136/315">making</a> for some time now, while lamenting the MSM crickets. (Could be why three bloggers appear as expert witnesses in the ad.) </p>
<p>But is the call for no residual forces at all realistic? In 2004, the United States still had more than 200,000 troops stationed overseas in Europe and Asia, with roughly half of them in Germany and South Korea. President Bush has outlined <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6461-2004Aug16.html">plans</a> to reduce that number by one-third. It's taken the United States&nbsp;decades to get those &quot;residual troops&quot; out. What makes Richardson think he can extricate every last military unit from Iraq in a year? Unless the Maliki government collapses entirely and we pull a <a href="http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_finalescape.html">Saigon-like airlift</a>, it's hard to imagine Congress agreeing to no residual forces whatsoever.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 24,&nbsp;3:09 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#everybodyout">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p> <a><strong>Mike Huckabee's Favorite Gun:</strong></a> You need only&nbsp;three words to sum up the GOP candidates' speeches at the NRA forum last Friday: <em>I love guns</em>. But only one of them got into specifics.</p>
<p>Gov. Mike Huckabee regaled the audience with a story about a one-shot antelope hunt in Wyoming, where he felled one at 250 yards with a single bullet. His weapon of choice? <a href="http://www.weatherby.com/products/guns.asp?prd=Rifles&amp;prd_sub_type=1&amp;prod_code=DXM257WR6O">The Weatherby .300 Magnum</a>. </p>
<p>Clearly there's some deeper meaning. According to its maker, the Weatherby &quot;has the flattest trajectory, longest range and the greatest killing power of any .300 magnum on the market today.&quot; Does that make Huckabee … a straight shooter? The gun also &quot;looks like a piece of furniture,&quot; says Weatherby sales rep Ursula Woodhull, which should accentuate Huckabee's rustic, heartland appeal. It's versatile, too—you can hunt different types of game in various weather conditions. Could Huckabee draw more independent voters than expected?</p>
<p>Also, Weatherby rifles have always been known for their walnut stocks, but like Huckabee, they also come in newer, lighter models.</p>
<p>We look forward to Sam Brownback's press release extolling the simple joys of the shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 24,&nbsp;11:22 a.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#favegun">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong>Friday, Sept. 21, 2007</strong></p>
<p> <a><strong>Mitt </strong></a> <strong>Romney's Puerto Rico Fever:</strong> Mitt Romney is going offshore to help distance himself from <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20789363/site/newsweek/">the GOP's struggles with Latino voters</a>. Romney sent out a <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Puerto_Rico_Steering_Committee">press release</a> Wednesday announcing the formation of a Puerto Rico steering committee. Candidates put steering committees together all the time, especially in states that they feel will have a big impact in the presidential race. But Puerto Rico isn't a state. Its citizens can't even vote in the general presidential election. (The island does hold the third-to-last Republican primary on May 31, 2008, and sends a small number of delegates to the Republican National Convention.) It's safe to say Isle of Enchantment voters aren't going to be the kingpins of '08.</p>
<p>But Romney doesn't need Puerto Ricans to vote for him—he needs Puerto Rican-Americans to rally behind him and spread the word. Romney's press office isn't shy about the move. The spokesperson I talked to paid lip service to courting votes in Puerto Rico but intimated that the steering committee's true goal was to shore up support on the mainland, specifically in Florida (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118982036854028373.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">13.3 percent</a> of residents are Hispanic). Romney probably wouldn't mind if Puerto Ricans voted for him, but he's going to the island in order to build buzz among &eacute;migr&eacute;s in the contiguous 48. </p>
<p>And what about the rest of America's territorial buddies? Dennis Kucinich has already <a href="http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/15/ln/hawaii709150341.html">gone to Hawaii to campaign</a>. Why not stop in the Virgin Islands next? John McCain is probably the most likely to form an Iraqi steering committee to court the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/us.iraq.refugees/index.html">meager number</a> of Iraqi refugees living in America. <strong>(<em>Clarification, Sept. 24, 2007</em>: We meant to imply Hawaii was an island state, not a territory.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because&nbsp;Kucinich has already left the mainland to campaign, the implication was that the Virgin Islands&nbsp;are not out of reach.)</strong></p>
<p>While the candidates are at it, why not try and start as many immigrant-based steering groups as possible? The headlines write themselves: &quot;Israelis for Obama!&quot; (<a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/JewsforObama">That may already be happening</a>.) &quot;Giuliani courts Englanders at home and abroad!&quot; (<a href="http://www.slate.com#anglophile">Wait, that's happening already, too</a>.) </p>
<p>Maybe Romney isn't a trendsetter after all.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>Sept. 21, 4:58 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#PuertoRico">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong></strong> <strong> <a>Shot in the Dark:</a></strong>&quot;It's nice to be here in England,&quot; Rudy Giuliani joked as he took the stage at the National Rifle Association's &quot;Celebration of American Values&quot; forum. The crack got a laugh, but it was an odd thing for someone with a history of supporting gun control to say to an audience of gun lovers. England is the last place you want them to be thinking about.</p>
<p>Thus began the former mayor's half-hour attempt to fudge, massage, and generally play down his record of restricting gun ownership in New York City. Instead, he painted himself as Giuliani the crime-fighter. His goal as president, he said, would be &quot;putting criminals behind bars when they commit crimes with guns or any other way.&quot; Which, of course, wouldn't affect anyone in the room. </p>
<p>He kept emphasizing that he would merely enforce laws already on the books. That means keeping the current laws on waiting periods and gun shows, while letting state and local law enforcement work out the details for themselves. One thing he didn't mention, however, was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1995, which he vigorously supported at the time. The NRA was polite enough not to ask about it during the Q&amp;A. </p>
<p>Giuliani knows he's walking a thin line. &quot;People commit crimes, not guns,&quot; he said at one point. But he also pointed out that &quot;if you don't have reasonable safety, you can't have other rights.&quot; So what's it going to be? Safety or guns? </p>
<p>So far, his answer seems to be, <em>Why can't it be both?</em> Whether or not Giuliani gets the support of gun owners depends largely on whether they buy this act. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, he's saying, is as important to the country's safety as protecting its borders and capturing terrorists. As long as he can convince people that restricting guns for criminals doesn't mean restricting guns for law-abiding NRA members, he's in the clear.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 21,&nbsp;2:45 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#NRA">link</a>)</p>
<p><em><strong> <a>Correction</a>, Sept. 28, 2007:</strong> This post originally suggested that CNN had not reported the 66 percent statistic in its coverage. It did report that number. (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Return">Return</a> &nbsp;to the corrected sentence.)</em></p>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:44:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/09/who_invited_wyoming.htmlChristopher BeamChadwick Matlin2007-09-24T15:44:00ZForget Iowa, Wyoming is first in the nation to vote!News and PoliticsForget Iowa, Wyoming is first in the nation to vote!2174597Christopher BeamChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2174597falsefalsefalseForget Iowa, Wyoming is first in the nation to vote!Forget Iowa, Wyoming is first in the nation to vote!John&nbsp;EdwardsMitt Romney's Puerto Rico Feverhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/09/mitt_romneys_puerto_rico_fever.html
<p> <a><strong>Mitt </strong></a> <strong>Romney's Puerto Rico Fever:</strong> Mitt Romney is going offshore to help distance himself from <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20789363/site/newsweek/">the GOP's struggles with Latino voters</a>. Romney sent out a <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Puerto_Rico_Steering_Committee">press release</a> Wednesday announcing the formation of a Puerto Rico steering committee. Candidates put steering committees together all the time, especially in states that they feel will have a big impact in the presidential race. But Puerto Rico isn't a state. Its citizens can't even vote in the general presidential election. (The island does hold the third-to-last Republican primary on May 31, 2008,&nbsp;and sends a small number of delegates to the Republican National Convention.) It's safe to say Isle of Enchantment voters aren't going to be the kingpins of '08.</p>
<p>But Romney doesn't need Puerto Ricans to vote for him—he needs Puerto Rican-Americans to rally behind him and spread the word. Romney's press office isn't shy about the move. The spokesperson I talked to paid lip service to courting votes in Puerto Rico but intimated that the steering committee's true goal was to shore up support on the mainland, specifically in Florida (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118982036854028373.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">13.3 percent</a> of residents are Hispanic). Romney probably wouldn't mind if Puerto Ricans voted for him, but he's going to the island in order to build buzz among &eacute;migr&eacute;s in the contiguous 48. </p>
<p>And what about the rest of America's territorial buddies? Dennis Kucinich has already <a href="http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Sep/15/ln/hawaii709150341.html">gone to Hawaii to campaign</a>. Why not stop in the Virgin Islands next? John McCain is probably the most likely to form an Iraqi steering committee to court the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/us.iraq.refugees/index.html">meager number</a> of Iraqi refugees living in America. <strong>(<em>Clarification, Sept. 24, 2007</em>: We meant to imply Hawaii was an island state, not a territory.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because&nbsp;Kucinich has already left the mainland to campaign, the implication was that the Virgin Islands&nbsp;are not out of reach.)</strong></p>
<p>While the candidates are at it, why not try and start as many immigrant-based steering groups as possible? The headlines write themselves: &quot;Israelis for Obama!&quot; (<a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/JewsforObama">That may already be happening</a>.) &quot;Giuliani courts Englanders at home and abroad!&quot; (<a href="http://www.slate.com#anglophile">Wait, that's happening already, too</a>.) </p>
<p>Maybe Romney isn't a trendsetter after all.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>Sept. 21, 4:58 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#PuertoRico">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong></strong> <strong> <a>Shot in the Dark:</a></strong>&quot;It's nice to be here in England,&quot; Rudy Giuliani joked as he took the stage at the National Rifle Association's &quot;Celebration of American Values&quot; forum. The crack got a laugh, but it was an odd thing for someone with a history of supporting gun control to say to an audience of gun lovers. England is the last place you want them to be thinking about.</p>
<p>Thus began the former mayor's half-hour attempt to fudge, massage, and generally play down his record of restricting gun ownership in New York City. Instead, he painted himself as Giuliani the crime-fighter. His goal as president, he said, would be &quot;putting criminals behind bars when they commit crimes with guns or any other way.&quot; Which, of course, wouldn't affect anyone in the room. </p>
<p>He kept emphasizing that he would merely enforce laws already on the books. That means keeping the current laws on waiting periods and gun shows, while letting state and local law enforcement work out the details for themselves. One thing he didn't mention, however, was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1995, which he vigorously supported at the time. The NRA was polite enough not to ask about it during the Q&amp;A. </p>
<p>Giuliani knows he's walking a thin line. &quot;People commit crimes, not guns,&quot; he said at one point. But he also pointed out that &quot;if you don't have reasonable safety, you can't have other rights.&quot; So what's it going to be? Safety or guns? </p>
<p>So far, his answer seems to be, <em>Why can't it be both?</em> Whether or not Giuliani gets the support of gun owners depends largely on whether they buy this act. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, he's saying, is as important to the country's safety as protecting its borders and capturing terrorists. As long as he can convince people that restricting guns for criminals doesn't mean restricting guns for law-abiding NRA members, he's in the clear.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 21,&nbsp;2:45 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#NRA">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Petty Warfare:</a></strong> If one second-tier candidate attacks another second-tier candidate, does anyone hear it?</p>
<p>Sen. Joe Biden's camp sent out a press release today criticizing Gov. Bill Richardson for his &quot;changing positions&quot; on Biden's troop withdrawal plan. Noting Richardson's statement yesterday claiming he was the &quot;only Democratic candidate with a concrete plan to end the war,&quot; Team Biden asks us to recall last month's Democratic debate in Iowa, where Richardson said, &quot;I believe Joe Biden's plan has potential.&quot; Before that, Richardson had said that Biden's federation proposal for Iraq &quot;may be ultimately the right solution.&quot; But I'm sure you knew all that already.</p>
<p>Does sniping between the campaign's bottom feeders actually benefit anyone? Yes, but certainly not Biden or Richardson. Whereas Hillary makes herself seem more inevitable by <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/white-house-criticizes-clinton-ad/">trading</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/20/hillary-calls-cheney-dar_n_65114.html">barbs</a> with the White House, these guys are helping thin out the competition by driving themselves into the margins. As the election approaches, long-shot candidates can shift the debate by attacking the front-runners in ways that the second- and third-place guys—both potential VP's—can't. Note to the Biden camp: Cancel the Mike Gravel attack ads and save your ammo for the big dogs.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 20,&nbsp;3:28 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#pettywarfare">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>The Mahmoud Effect:</a></strong> The chance to blast a leader like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a freebie for the presidential candidates. When word spread yesterday that the Iranian president wanted to go to Ground Zero and lay a wreath for the victims of 9/11, candidates of both parties <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/reaction-to-ahmadinejad-at-ground-zero/">denounced</a> the idea. Mitt Romney called the request &quot;shockingly audacious,&quot; Hillary deemed it &quot;unacceptable,&quot; and Rudy Giuliani urged that &quot;[u]nder no circumstances&quot; should Ahmadinejad be allowed to visit the site. Whoever responds fastest and most angrily wins!</p>
<p>But the candidates have had less to say about the announcement that Ahmadinejad will speak at Columbia University's World Leaders Forum on Monday. It's a surprising move for the university, given that Columbia President Lee Bollinger retracted an invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak at the same event last year. When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was slated to speak in 2005, that event was canceled, too. What has changed since then? This time, Bollinger said, he'll introduce the Iranian president with &quot;a series of sharp challenges&quot; about his Holocaust denial, calls for the destruction of Israel, and suppression of civil society. Ahmadinejad will also have to agree to a question-and-answer session. </p>
<p>Sen. John McCain has so far been the only candidate to respond: &quot;A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university.&quot; </p>
<p>So, does McCain hope that Ahmadinejad gets the reception he did at Columbia? When the senator was asked to speak there at graduation last year, students petitioned to disinvite him because he had just recently given a speech at Liberty University. He went anyway. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 20,&nbsp;12:47 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#mahmoudeffect">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Cut the Fat:</a></strong> Bill Richardson wants to make America less fat. &quot;As president, fighting obesity will be one of my top priorities,&quot; he <a href="http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0285">said today</a> at the Obesity Society's Public Policy Conference in Washington. Limiting obesity, and therefore diseases like diabetes, is part of his <a href="http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0214">universal health-care plan</a>. But it seems a little strange to hear calls for slimming down from the plumpest candidate in the field.</p>
<p>Or is it? Richardson has long <a href="http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/55580.html">struggled</a> with his weight, which in some ways makes him <em>more</em> qualified to discuss obesity. He lost a reported 30 pounds before entering the race—not quite Mike Huckabee's 110-pound drop but still respectable—and campaign spokesman Tom Reynolds says Richardson &quot;continues&quot; to slim down. But the campaign has yet to tout his declining girth as a qualification. Instead, he cites his accomplishments combating childhood obesity—regulating vending machines in schools and&nbsp;requiring physical education—and says he can get adults to tighten their belts, too. Richardson &quot;puts his money where his mouth is,&quot; says Reynolds. Apt phrasing, as it were.</p>
<p>Of course, whether or not the nation would elect an obese candidate—especially with the scars of William Howard Taft's <a href="http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/taft.html">bathtub incident</a> still fresh—is unclear. Richardson's camp dismisses the problem. &quot;We think our position on the issues is going to matter,&quot; said Reynolds. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 19,&nbsp;5:35 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#cutthefat">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p> <strong> <a>Rudy Giuliani: Anglophile?</a></strong> A good way to get elected president is to act like you're already president. At least that seems to be what Rudy Giuliani is thinking as he takes a&nbsp;trip across the pond, where he <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/giulianis-day-in-london/">meets</a> today with British leaders Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Margaret Thatcher. The mayor will also court London-based American donors—finance refugees fleeing Sarbanes-Oxley—and give a foreign-policy speech tonight in honor of Thatcher. To top it off, the Giuliani campaign <a href="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/800">announced</a> the addition of two former Thatcher advisers, Robert Conquest and Nile Gardiner. Next thing we know, he'll be serving tea at fund-raisers.</p>
<p>As the first '08 candidate to campaign in Britain, Giuliani scores an early touchdown (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket">run</a>?) in the Foreign Policy Primary. It's a move that makes Romney's recent foreign-policy efforts look weak. All he did was write&nbsp;a <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/62908http:/www.mittromney.com/img/pdf/UN_Letter.pdf">letter</a> (PDF) to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon this week urging him to rescind Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at the U.N. General Assembly.</p>
<p>Unlike Bush, Giuliani is <a href="http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/06/british_conserv.html">remarkably popular</a> among British conservatives. He also gains cred by signing up Conquest, a renowned Cold War historian who turned 90 this summer. Giuliani has said he wants &quot;to accomplish [in Iraq] what we accomplished in Japan or in Germany.&quot; professor Niall Ferguson (who has been advising McCain) <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XFQNRYH5VZSJZQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/09/16/do1602.xml">argues</a> that Giuliani's attitude—hard-charging plus Churchillian grandiosity—might have worked for cleaning up New York, but won't work for foreign policy. Perhaps having Conquest behind him will help make Giuliani more convincing.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 19,&nbsp;2:45 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#anglophile">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p> <a><p> <a><strong>Romney the Scold:</strong></a> &nbsp;In Mitt Romney's new ad, &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IO7tX9Co0">Change Begins With Us</a>,&quot; he tells voters that &quot;if we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order&quot; and stop acting like Democrats. That means spending less, cracking down on illegal immigration, and raising ethical standards, which now &quot;are a punch line for Jay Leno.&quot;</p></a></p>
<p>The ad attacks Bush for his budget woes, McCain for his immigration stance, and the Craig/Vitter/Foley crew for their libertine ways. But it also pins these vices on Democrats. &quot;When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses.&quot; Loses what? Fill in the blank: money. The war in Iraq. Our dignity. It's a nice twist: Yes, our party has stumbled. But even when we make mistakes, blame the Democrats.</p>
<p><strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p>Romney also gets to play the father figure, with an affectionate condescension that suits him well. <em>You've been bad</em>. <em>But I know this isn't you.</em> What with the inspirational music and leafy backdrop, I feel like I've just stepped into a lesson-learning scene from<em> The Wonder Years</em>. It fits Romney's image as Washington outsider, too. He's here to clean things up, and he's going to need our help. But first, let's play some catch in the backyard. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 19,&nbsp;11:37 a.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#scold">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Heckle</a> This:</strong> Sen. John Kerry's <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/09/kerry_responds_to_taser_incide.html?hpid=topnews">run-in with a heckler</a> at the University of Florida on Monday brought back memories of protesters who have disrupted presidential candidates past and present.&nbsp; In honor of these dissenters and the First Amendment they're lucky to have, we're creating the Heckler Hall of Fame. This handful of inductees illuminates the different ways candidates can respond:</p>
<p><strong>The Comeback<br /></strong><strong>Response tactics: Dismissive laugh, quick one-liner, appeal to audience's humor<br /></strong><em>McCain's &quot;jerk&quot;</em>: In the middle of a question-and-answer session in New Hampshire, a student <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zx3-0zOPs">questions Sen. John McCain's vitality</a>. McCain responds with a minute and a half of generation gap anecdotes before directly addressing the questioner: &quot;Thanks for the question, you little jerk.&quot; The crowd explodes with applause.</p>
<p><em>Hillary's &quot;in the name of Jesus&quot;</em><em>protester</em>: Speaking about her energy plan, Clinton is <a href="http://thepalmettoscoop.vodpod.com/pod/show_video/VideoCategory.6112/10166">interrupted by a chorus of boos</a> and a woman screaming, &quot;In the name of Jesus, get out!&quot;&nbsp; Clinton's supporters overwhelm the hecklers with a cheer rebuttal. Once the chaos subsides, Clinton cracks, &quot;That's what I love about politics, you never know what the day will bring.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>The &quot;Nothing To See Here, Folks&quot;<br /></strong><strong>Response tactics: Darting eyes, exasperated sigh, monotone speech<br /></strong><em>Thompson's challenger</em>: In July, Fred Thompson was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMWGNX7HlI">greeted by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist</a> who challenged his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations at an airport. As the woman is escorted away, Thompson flees the scene.</p>
<p><em>Giuliani's 9/11 nut</em>: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74LRpnnRm20">A Wal-Mart hater barges</a> in on Rudy Giuliani's address at the University of Oklahoma. Giuliani ignores him, makes a joke, and finally continues his speech as the heckler's screams echo through the auditorium from the hallway.</p>
<p><strong>The Polite Confrontation<br /></strong><strong>Response tactics: Bemused smile, raised voice, principled support of free speech<br /></strong><em>Romney takes charge:</em> Faced with challenges <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/08/02/VI2007080201294.html">on his health-care policy</a>, his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9hydflwEQ&amp;mode=related&amp;search=">conservative credentials</a>, and <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=BGct7N86mrY">his Mormonism</a>, Romney refuses to stand down. He debates his health-care challenger, pleading, &quot;If you'd like me to answer the question I will!&quot; When an audience member questions his faith, the former governor leans on freedom of religion to dismiss the hecklers' concerns while standing woodenly with a microphone in hand. </p>
<p><strong>The Holier-Than-Thou Shutdown<br /></strong><strong>Response tactics: Finger pointing, raised voice, emphasis on &quot;respect&quot;<br /></strong><em>Bill Clinton fights back</em>: None of the 2008 candidates can hold a candle to Bill Clinton's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGTQZnC-6a4&amp;mode=related&amp;search">forceful deconstruction</a> of a heckler while campaigning in 1992. Clinton stops his speech, looks the guy in the eye and says, &quot;Will you just calm down?&quot; He then leaves the lectern, jabs his finger toward the heckler and uses the words <em>crap</em> and <em>hell</em> like they're the norm for a political speech.</p>
<p>One last wild-card inductee to mention: We would be remiss to exclude <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=JhqaErpR0a0">this verbal assault</a> on <em>Weekly Standard</em> editor Bill Kristol in Texas. Kristol, while not a politician, attempts rebuttals but is overpowered by questioner after questioner.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Chadwick Matlin,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 18,&nbsp;7:40 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#heckle">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Five-Minute Magic</a>:</strong> Sen. Barack Obama's new tax plan promises to provide $80 to $85 billion in tax cuts for the middle class. Also, to simplify tax filings so that &quot;millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than 5 minutes.&quot; For anyone who spends the average 15 hours preparing their taxes every April, the prospect of five-minute taxes makes disarming North Korea seem like a low priority. But is it realistic?</p>
<p>Doubtful. The idea, Obama said in his speech today, is to automate part of the filing process. &quot;The government already collects wage and bank account information,&quot; he said, &quot;so there's no reason the IRS can't send Americans prefilled tax forms to verify.&quot; But that assumes Congress would be willing to put in the money to upgrade the IRS' sagging technology. Also, the five-minute promise only applies to people who take the standard deduction. If you itemize your deductions, you're still screwed. </p>
<p>Sure, young single people with one modest job and no dependents can fill out a basic 1040 form and be done with it. But for them, the process is already simple. (Is there a better argument for the monastic life?)</p>
<p>Obama also claims his plan would &quot;save Americans more than $2 billion in tax preparer fees.&quot; This <em>is</em> great news. So, are the tax preparers worried? Cindy Hockenberry at the National Association of Tax Professionals doubts Obama's proposal would do much damage to the profession. When the IRS introduced its online Free File program, she said, tax preparers cowered, but &quot;it didn't make a dent.&quot; It turns out that most people who file their taxes online aren't the kind of people who hire tax preparers. Same would go for Obama's five-minute tax plan, in all likelihood. </p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 18,&nbsp;5:50 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#fiveminute">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p> <a><strong>&quot;Nightmare&quot; Scenario:</strong></a> The Giuliani camp just released a new radio ad responding to yesterday's MoveOn.org &quot;Betrayal of Trust&quot; ad, which <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPj-bpIeSTU">slams</a> the former mayor for quitting the Iraq Study Group to give paid speeches. (Listen to it below.) &quot;Why is MoveOn attacking Rudy Giuliani?&quot; the Giuliani comeback asks. &quot;Because he's their worst nightmare. They know Rudy is a Republican who can beat the Democrats.&quot; </p>
<p>Meaning physically, right?</p>
<p><strong></strong></p>
<p> Giuliani's ad will start running today in Iowa, where MoveOn is also broadcasting its spot. The two campaigns have been at odds since MoveOn placed its &quot;General Betray Us&quot; ad in the <em>New York Times</em> on the first day of Gen. David Petraeus' congressional testimony. Giuliani <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/12/giuliani-calls-moveonorg-ad-disgusting-slams-clinton/">called</a> that ad &quot;disgusting&quot; and ran his own <em>NYT</em> full-pager defending Petraeus. (See it <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/14/nytad_full.jpg">here</a>.) The new&nbsp;response ad quotes Giuliani saying: &quot;These times call for statesmanship, not spewing political venom.&quot;</p>
<p>Rudy isn't the first 2008 candidate to run tough-guy political ads. John McCain's &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzxUnjI082c">Stand Up</a>&quot; spot, which ran earlier this year, features slow black-and-white montages and bizarre imperial music straight out of<em></em> <a href="http://www.commandandconquer.com/">Command and Conquer</a>. Back in 2004, President Bush ran an ad showing a family evacuating their house as a narrator intones, &quot;Weakness invites those who would do us harm.&quot; But trading barbs with MoveOn is a smart way to show toughness without attacking a fellow candidate. </p>
<p><strong>UPDATE 5:10 p.m.:</strong> MoveOn has upped the ante by expanding its &quot;Betrayal of Trust&quot; ad to run nationally on CNN. (It started running only in Iowa.) Giuliani's rebuttal, their press release states, &quot;demonstrates that he can't answer the basic charge leveled against him: that he betrayed the public's trust when he went AWOL from the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to take on high-fee speaking engagements.&quot;</p>
<p>Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign, says they have no current plans to broadcast the &quot;Nightmare&quot;&nbsp;radio spot outside Iowa.</p>
<p><strong>Posted by Christopher Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 18, 3:19 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#nightmare">link</a>)</p>
<p><strong>__________________________</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>Hillary and Her 14 Kids:</a></strong> Today is Day 2 of the Hillary Clinton <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/?sc=8">health-care plan</a> offensive. This morning she appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN stressing how much her new plan is not like her 1993 one. She's got a Web conversation scheduled for 8 tonight and she's putting out a new health-care ad. Watch it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNY4gfSPRts">here</a> and see if you can figure out what message she's trying to send.</p>
<p>What did you notice? I was struck by the number of kids. She's got more of them in the ad than a <a href="http://blogs.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/Images/romneycard.jpg">Romney family photo</a>. (Between 11 and 14 of them, depending on how you count.) Politicians have been kissing babies forever, but there's Sen. Clinton holding them, patting their little heads, and walking through a swarm of them. When she can't touch the kids, she touches the shoulders of parents who hold them. Beyond selling the program, the ad continues <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2169159/">the effort to present Clinton as a warm</a>, nurturing person. All those kids are also supposed to remind you that Clinton spent her early career as an advocate for children. (If you don't remember that, <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/27.aspx">Bill Clinton will remind you</a>.)</p>
<p>For those really interested in the messages campaigns try to send while promoting policy, examine the cover of the <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf">brochure</a> (PDF) for the plan, which encompasses almost every possible family arrangement—young, old, couples with kids and without, and of the same gender. (The two women remind me of the <a href="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QKZ0Y0ZVL._AA280_.jpg">Kashi box</a>.) <strong>Posted by John Dickerson,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 18,&nbsp;1:25 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#Hillary">link</a>)</p>
<p>__________________________</p>
<p><strong>Sept. 17, 2007</strong></p>
<p><strong> <a>The Populist Primary:</a></strong> Hillary took her time getting to the stage. It felt strategic, as if she thought the number of minutes that elapse before you arrive at the podium reflects how much the crowd likes you. </p>
<p>Or maybe it's just hard to move quickly with all that baggage. For one thing, Hillary missed the Aug. 1 <a href="http://www.walkadayinmyshoes2008.com/front/2007/4/30/workers-set-deadline-for-candidates-to-issue-detailed-health.html">deadline</a> the SEIU set for candidates to announce health-care plans. Instead, she <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/?iref=mpstoryview">unveiled</a> the last of it today, a move that was well-timed to coincide with the convention, but also way past the union's roll-out date. She also faced skepticism about her friendly relations with corporate donors and Bill's trade policies—NAFTA in particular didn't win him (or her) any fans among labor leaders. She went out of her way, therefore, to bring up her vote against CAFTA and her opposition to &quot;fast track authority,&quot; which lets the president bypass Congress during trade negotiations. </p>
<p>In this crowd, the more populist the pitch, the better. Hillary slammed the current administration as &quot;robber barons&quot; who have &quot;turned back the clock on the entire 20<sup>th</sup> century&quot; and its government programs. But she wasn't the only one embracing her inner Huey Long. &quot;I will tell you this,&quot; vowed John Edwards in this speech. &quot;I intend to be the best union president in the history of the United States of America.&quot; </p>
<p>This game of one-upmanship launched some creative metaphors. &quot;They say we're going to give labor a seat at the table,&quot; Hillary said. &quot;Labor <em>built </em>the table.&quot; Edwards warned that if we allow insurance and pharmaceutical companies a seat at the table, &quot;they'll eat all the food.&quot; Look for Obama to offer Big Pharma a highchair but no bib.</p>
<p>Hillary outlined her health-care plan,&nbsp;hiting the key points—providing preventive care, getting rid of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and bargaining with Medicare to reduce costs. She kept emphasizing &quot;choice.&quot; &quot;If you like your private health insurance, you can keep it,&quot; she said. If you don't, you get to choose from the &quot;wide variety of plans&quot; available to members of Congress. People cheered the policy points, but you could feel the room's collective eye glazing over. As usual, Hillary's strength was policy, not performance. And at a convention like this, stagecraft wins the day. </p>
<p>On that score, Obama stole the show. Edwards, too, had his moment, first by proclaiming himself the Best Union President Ever, then by proposing legislation that would cut off health coverage for lawmakers if they don't pass a universal health care by 2009. The biggest roar of the night came when Edwards urged Congress to send Bush a bill with a timetable for leaving Iraq: &quot;If he vetoes it, they should send him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal.&quot; By the time the crowd stopped chanting his name, he could have walked to Virginia and back. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, union leaders invited members to cast ballots designating their first, second, and third choices for endorsements. Or members could recommend no endorsement whatsoever. We probably won't know the union's official decision for another few weeks. The SEIU's president, Andy Stern, has <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070914/pl_bloomberg/afklgs2emgxg">suggested</a> they're leaning toward Edwards. But the option of not endorsing anyone appears to be, if not on the table, then at least near it. <strong>Posted by Christopher&nbsp;Beam,</strong>&nbsp;Sept. 17, 10:55 p.m. ET ( <a href="http://www.slate.com#populistprimary">link</a>)</p>
<p>__________________________</p>
<p> <a><strong>Labor Day:</strong></a> If you're a presidential candidate and you want a labor endorsement, you're going to have to work for it. Five Democratic hopefuls and 2,000 union leaders have descended on the Washington Hilton today for a conference hosted by the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU, which represents 1.9 million health-care workers, janitors, security guards, and other service workers, is the fastest-growing union in the country. Winning its endorsement, as Howard Dean did in 2004, is considered a major boon.</p>
<p>The SEIU cleverly uses the union's &quot;Walk a Day In My Shoes&quot; program, for which Democratic candidates (plus one Republican—brave man, Mike Huckabee) spent a day working with SEIU members, as a framing device. Each speech begins with a video documentary of the candidate's workday. Obama eats breakfast and does laundry with Pauline Beck, a home-care worker. Biden helps make repairs with a school custodian. Richardson assists a family-services worker. It's <em>The Simple Life</em> for politicians. (See the videos <a href="http://www.walkadayinmyshoes2008.com/walkadaytour/">here</a>.) The result is win-win: The candidates get to say, <em>I know how you feel, this isn't just rhetoric.</em> And the union gets a powerful series of YouTube-able photo ops. </p>
<p>Dodd goes first. His biggest cheers—and boos—come when he promises to overturn the Kentucky River decisions, a series of 2006 NLRB rulings that reclassified certain nurses as &quot;supervisors&quot; to avoid giving them health care. Dodd keeps reminding us he's been around Washington for 26 years: &quot;I've been a union guy since I arrived in the halls of Congress. I'm a union guy today. And I'm going to be a union guy in the White House.&quot; He gets big applause for promising universal health care. Mentions of the Family Medical Leave Act and his childcare laws get loud response, too. He's a great performer, growling and barking like a union leader should. But he also talks like an underdog: &quot;I know I'm not as well known. I know I'm not as well-heeled.&quot; Even though he got the coveted (and mostly symbolic) firefighter's union endorsement, it's unlikely the SEIU will throw its weight behind a long shot after the Dean fiasco. </p>
<p>Next up is Obama. By the time he's done speaking—if you can even call a shouting, rousing performance like this a mere speech—I'm becoming concerned about the auditorium's structural integrity. &quot;I don't know about you, but I'm tired of playing defense,&quot; he says. &quot;We want to play some offense for the minimum wage. We want to play some offense for universal health care.&quot; He does that thing where he leans into the microphone and shouts over the crowd's building roar. Whether or not he'll bust out this sort of roof-raising in Iowa and New Hampshire, we'll see. The &quot;offense&quot; tack has to be a jab at Hillary: She's spent the past few months defending her record on health care in the 1990s, and she'll certainly spend the next few days defending the plan she just unveiled. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have to play defense, seeing as he has a much smaller record to defend. He goes overtime, but no one seems to care. </p>
<p>After Obama, Richardson feels like an opiate. Even the lines that should get big applause—&quot;Bring them all home! No residual forces!&quot;—receive measured response. Same goes for his big health-care moment, when he asks &quot;Do you know where [veterans] will be able to get health care? Anywhere they want! Anywhere they want! Anywhere they want!&quot; There's a moment where it just might turn into a chant. It doesn't. It's hard to tell how much of the tepid response is Richardson's fault and how much is an Obama hangover. Even Richardson recognizes it's a lost cause, saying, &quot;You guys are really wound up, aren't you? Obama really gave a good speech, didn't he?&quot; </p>
<p>Next up: Hillary goes on offense. <strong>Posted by Christopher&nbsp;Beam, </strong>Sept. 17, 7:08 p.m. ET (<a href="http://www.slate.com#laborday">link</a>)</p>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:08:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trailhead/2007/09/mitt_romneys_puerto_rico_fever.htmlChristopher BeamJohn DickersonChadwick Matlin2007-09-17T23:08:00ZWhy Mitt Romney is courting Latino votes that don't count.News and PoliticsWhy Mitt Romney is courting Latino votes that don't count.2174057Christopher BeamJohn DickersonChadwick MatlinTrailheadhttp://www.slate.com/id/2174057falsefalsefalseWhy Mitt Romney is courting Latino votes that don't count.Why Mitt Romney is courting Latino votes that don't count.Mitt Romney